Talk:Historicity of Jesus/Archive 34

Archive 30

←

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

→

Archive 40

Mediation, or Requests for Comments

When the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard rejected the request to handle the content disputes on this article, they said to take the content issues to formal Mediation and the conduct issues to WP:ANI. Both of those, while standard advice, may not be the best ways to resolve the issues. There is no good way to resolve conduct issues; WP:ANI resolves them satisfactorily when the problem is obvious, such as flamers, trolls, or other editors who are not here to build the encyclopedia, but conduct issues that complicate the resolution of content issues, as noted, usually go to ArbCom. In any case, the mood seems to have calmed down, and I don't see any current conduct issues. Also, while Mediation is the usual formal way to resolve content issues, it is often very slow and tedious and does not always work at all. Some mediation issues are open for months. Due to the large number of parties, merely getting buy-in for Mediation will be time-consuming, and some editors have declined mediation, either saying that there are too many issues, or raising questions about whether mediation will work. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I propose an alternate means of resolving the content issues, which does not foreclose Mediation if all else fails. I propose the use of multiple Requests for Comments. FearofReprisal and ISeeEwe have both proposed reasonably organized ideas for reworking this article. (I don't see ISeeEwe's here, but I have it in an email, and have requested permission to post.) I suggest that they be stated here, and that any other ideas for RFCs be stated here, and then that a single RFC combining all of the questions be posted and publicized for the community. RFCs run for 30 days (one month, not several months) and do not require buy-in, because they are publicized to the community by a bot. Why don't we spend a week or so working out the details of a multi-part RFC, and then publish a single multi-part RFC to determine community consensus? That will not rule out mediation, but maybe that will work better than mediation. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Please provide draft questions for the RFC below the line. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Misconceptions run amuck

Editors new to this article and possibly topic seem to be operating on a number of misconceptions, many if not all of which may be at least in part motivated by their own POV. Because they seem to not be, well, burdened with much awareness of policies, guidelines, and/or knowledge of this topic, I guess someone will have to point them out.

First, as per our manual of style or WP:MOS, titles do not determine article content, the statement of the scope of the article in the lede section does.

Secondly, someone earlier said the field of biblical studies was, basically, the study of the Bible. It would be more accurate to say that the field of "biblical studies" is more or less everything directly relevant to the Bible and the Biblical era, or, basically, more or less the same as the field of Ancient Near Eastern studies, which is a newer designation.

Thirdly, there has been a claim that academics in the field of Biblical studies should be judged as reliable at least in part based on their statements of their own current beliefs. I very much wonder whether these people have ever taken even a single class in the field of religious studies. As someone who did study religion, I can still remember, after about 30 years, one of the things the professor said on the first day was that any students who had any beliefs would have almost certainly question them or even change them during the period of study. Unofficially, that "crisis of faith" generally happens in the sophomore or junior year. I remember at the secular school I went to pretty much all my classmates stopped regularly attending services then. FWIW, I stopped in my sophomore year. Bart Ehrman, in his numerous discussions of his own history, describes his particular history as well. However, unlike him, and the facts of his particular beliefs and the school he went to probably play a role here, over time and thought, many students realize their initial overreactions to ideas new to them were overreactions to new ideas, and that's about all. I will assume that academics who have received advanced degrees after much more study will have perceived the logical flaws in attempting to use deductive reasoning in an a clearly inductive field. Many change their beliefs, often in significant ways, but the same is true of others as well. About the only thing they almost all learn to do is separate their personal beliefs and their academic conclusions, unlike ministers (who generally take different courses) and those who have not made similar studies.

I do have some points about the current discussion, in the section below. John Carter (talk) 15:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

So, we have lots of Christian Biblical scholars who rationally don't believe the Bible? Pull the other one. HiLo48 (talk) 17:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I think what we have here are some radical atheists who are emotionally driven to turn this article into an apology for the Christ Myth Theory as part of an atheistic evangelistic endeavor. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

John Carter: Feel free to state your understanding of the current consensus scope.

Bill the Cat 7: Maybe you could create a list of these radical atheist apologist evangelists, over on your User:Bill_the_Cat_7/CMT_FAQ page? Fearofreprisal (talk) 20:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

You are one of them. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Ooooh. Me too? I love pointless labels. I have quite a list of them here already. HiLo48 (talk) 21:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Can we get back to improving the article? How about you tell us what the scope of the article should be? Personally, I'm not too sure the Christ Myth theory fits within the scope, as it's based on an unprovable assertion. Fearofreprisal (talk) 21:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Almost universal assent

Scholars who believe that Jesus existed differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts,[12] and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[9][10][11]

— (From the article)

The full quotation from Dunn [9] is this: "Two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent. They bracket the three years for which Jesus is most remembered, his life's work, his mission. One is Jesus' baptism by John. The other is his death by crucifixion. Because they rank so high on the 'almost impossible to doubt or deny' scale of historical 'facts', they are obvious starting points for an attempt to clarify the what and why of Jesus' mission."

• I challenge the "almost universal assent" claim as being WP:EXCEPTIONAL. The citation (including several subsequent pages) provides no evidence to support this claim, nor does he say among which group the assent is almost universal. It's certainly not universal among non-Christians.
• I also challenge the "impossible to doubt or deny" claim as being WP:EXCEPTIONAL. The citation (including several subsequent pages) provides no mention or analysis of historical evidence to support the claim.

Neither of the other two citations are of help in supporting these exceptional claims, and actually dispute them:

• The Herzog citation [10] only references claims by E.P. Sanders, but provides no mention of historical evidence to support these claims. Herzog says "What Sanders may accept as unquestioned fact may be disputed by other Jesus scholars." So, this contradicts "almost universal assent." Herzog also says "It is an ever-present temptation, to which this study will succumb from time to time, to claim too much on the basis of too little evidence."
• The Crossan citation [11] ("That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus ... agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact.") is more a dismissal of the possibility historical certainty, than a claim that the Crucifixion is "impossible to doubt or deny." Fearofreprisal (talk) 17:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

@Wdford: - Next time, when you revert, possibly you should discuss? Or, propose new language for the disputed material? Fearofreprisal (talk) 10:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

The article is not saying that "Scholars have firm evidence that Jesus was baptized etc", as this evidence clearly does not exist. The article is merely saying that "Most/many bible scholars BELIEVE this to be the case." As such the cited sources are correct. You can make the case that these scholars need a bit more evidence to support their beliefs, but you cannot dispute that they believe it. I have proposed that we indicate a bit more clearly on what evidence these beliefs are based. I have also proposed that the article differentiate better between supported facts and personal opinions. PS: I don't recall you discussing this deletion - your personal assertion does not constitute a discussion actually. Wdford (talk) 11:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I think we might more accurately say that historians find the available sufficient for them to "accept" that Jesus existed in some way, with the possibility of that changing if and as the evidence changes. The word believe is more than a little ambiguous in this case. John Carter (talk) 16:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it's important to distinguish between a source's belief/acceptance/agreement that Jesus existed, versus their statements regarding Jesus' historicity. Many of the citations used in this article are more about belief (with all its ambiguities) than any actual analysis of historical actuality. But, they're presented in a rather opaque way, and it takes some research (finding the citation and reading it in context) before you discover that - surprise - a citation is not really about historicity. Fearofreprisal (talk) 19:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe that's because as I said below the title doesn't indicate the scope of an article, as you seem to believe, but rather the statement of scope in the lede does. John Carter (talk) 20:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Wdford - whether the cited sources are correct or not doesn't matter, if what they say is irrelevant to the scope of the article, as is the case with the statment "There is a significant debate about his nature, his actions and his sayings." (Which refers to things unsupported by historical evidence.) The "universal assent" related passage has a problem with being an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim on the part of Dunn, and is not supported by the other citations. Fearofreprisal (talk) 21:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

A) I removed the phrase “universal assent” from the paragraph, so what exactly are you complaining about now? The opinions about the baptism and the crucifixion are general opinions, if not universal opinions, so what is your justification (if any) for deleting them?

B) Dunn - and others - base their opinion re the baptism on the criteria of embarrassment, and their opinion of the crucifixion on the disputed passages in Josephus and Tacitus. This is the same level of "non-biblical evidence" that supports the rest of the Jesus story. What is the distinction between saying “some scholars believe Jesus was baptised”, vs “some scholars believe Jesus lived in Galilee”? There is equally little evidence for either assertion – on what basis have you decided that one stays in and one is deleted?

C)The scope of the article has been thrashed out by many people over years of editing, and you don’t get to change it unilaterally just because you feel so inclined. You claim that you are trying to get a consensus on the scope, and yet you impose your own scope on the article without consensus, and in fact without any support at all. This is troll behavior - what gives? Wdford (talk) 22:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

You made a bold deletion, it was reverted, and now you refuse to engage in rational discussion about it. This content is cited and is in line with the scope as it stands, and you have achieved ZERO support to change the scope. So I am putting the original material back, until there is a consensus to amend it. If you continue to delete it based on your personal opinion of what the scope should be, its edit-warring. Wdford (talk) 11:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@Wdford: Would you like me to send you a diff of my discussing the issue?

Regards "A" - You removed the phrase "universal assent" from the paragraph? NOT. Can you provide any citations that show these are "general opinions" and "universal opinions", or that even show what a "general opinion" or "universal opinion" is? Is this something you just made up?

Regards "B" - Specific citations, please. Your original research on what Dunn and others base their opinions upon just doesn't cut it. And the statement "some scholars believe Jesus was baptised" is not historicity. It's

Regards "C" - Can you give me a diff on consensus regarding the scope? For that matter, can you even tell me what the scope of the article is?

Fearofreprisal (talk) 13:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Historicity of Jesus and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

I am a bit unsure about whether this is a 3O case since there are also some responses by John Carter which makes it three editors. Nevertheless, assuming that the primary dispute is between Wdford and Fearofreprisal, I will give my opinion. I should add that I have no special knowledge of the area and am just evaluating the arguments given here. It seems to me that WP:EXCEPTIONAL does not apply here. The quotation is not about whether people have established beyond doubt that Jesus was crucified or baptized, but what the opinion of scholars is on the historical truth of these claims. From the citations given, it seems to me that in the general opinion of scholars the two events are historically true. Our purpose here on WP is not to second-guess the scholars or to evaluate their arguments. If Fearofreprisal wishes to add sources which claim that these events are not accepted as historically true by scholars, he should start with that. Kingsindian (talk) 14:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I think this particular piece of language only needs tweaking. It qualifies the group nicely in the beginning ("Scholars who believe that Jesus existed") and then strays into that "universal assent" language. It's quite likely true that scholars that believe Jesus existed agree about the crucifixion and the baptism, and as long as the language is carefully constructed to not leave the impression that the world in general agrees, leaving that concept in is fine.—Kww(talk) 15:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Article content

I get the impression that the existing article's problems are at least in part due to it trying to cram three or more different topics into one article.

First would be an article on the oft-repeated basically atheist assertion that Jesus never existed. In fact, I think that may have been the reason the article was first created. Given our article naming conventions, and no similar articles being extant, the existing title could easily have been misappropriated.

A second article would be the actual existing consensus academic view of the question of Jesus' existence. A third potential article would be about the various forms of historical study, possibly with spinout articles on each method.

To date, having looked through several recent reference sources, I haven't found much on the topic of the historicity of Jesus separate from the historicity of the gospels, but if given an email I can and will send what I have. The Wikipedia Library may well have more.

At this point I do think maybe the first priority would be to determine what articles on this broad topic we should have and what their individual titles should be. That would make it much easier to determine how to use this particular title. John Carter (talk) 16:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd say the "first priority" would be for you to state your understanding of the current consensus scope of this article. Then, if you disagree with that, propose a new consensus scope. Fearofreprisal (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

The phrasing of the lead before a rather single-minded POV pusher, specifically, you, came in would be I think a reasonable place to start because that seemed to have some consensus which few of your own edits seem to have. John Carter (talk) 21:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Any lead you supported is unlikely to have had my support, but I did feel bullied away from here for a while by some ganging up behaviour and misuse of tools such as AN/I by some editors. HiLo48 (talk) 22:08, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

John Carter, your discussion, starting in the “Misconceptions run amuck” section, sounds quite reasonable until, in this section, you mention “the oft-repeated basically atheist assertion that Jesus never existed”. Oops. There is nothing atheist about the assertion that Jesus may not have been an actual historical person. Most of the world's hundreds of religions would continue, as devout and faithful as they have ever been, if there had never been such an individual. Questioning a historical Jesus neither requires an atheistic view nor leads to one. Perhaps you mean “the basically non-Christian assertion”?  Unician ∇  22:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

SFAIK, having consulted pretty much all the independent reliable sources I can think of that might address this, the only place the idea of Jesus not existing has ever gotten any sort of significant attention is in the western atheist/agnostic community since roughly the start of the New Age. If you know of any other groups that independent reliable sources say have significantly supported the contention, I would welcome that information. John Carter (talk) 22:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

@John Carter: The first sentence of the lead, which represents the scope of the article, has, for the last 8 months or so, been largely the same. Here is the current version: "The historicity of Jesus concerns the analysis of historical evidence to determine whether Jesus of Nazareth existed as a historical figure, and whether any of the major milestones in his life as portrayed in the gospels can be confirmed as historical events."

I did make two changes to this statement over the past several months:

• I removed "...as opposed to the Christ myth theory, which holds that the Jesus of Nazareth as portrayed in the Bible is a fictional figure." If you want to put it back, by all means do so, and we can start a talk page discussion cycle on that. I don't think this change was POV-pushing, but please let me know if you think it was.
• I changed "Jesus" to "Jesus of Nazareth." If you think this change somehow damages the article's POV, please tell me, and I'll change it back.

I just made a third change, which I believe improves the clarity of the statement, without pushing POV. Be sure to tell me if you don't like it. Fearofreprisal (talk) 05:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't like it. Your first two changes were fine and valuable. However this latest change alters the scope of the article, which we all understand has been your intention all along. We want the article to address two things - did Jesus actually exist as an actual person, and which of the events in the gospels actually happened. If your third change moves away from that chosen scope then its unacceptable, and if your third change retains the same scope then your wording is less clear, not more clear. So let's leave that as is. BTW you haven't responded to my suggestions to have separate sections for "analysis of evidence" vs "scholarly opinion"? Wdford (talk) 10:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I oppose both the most recent change and the removal of the early link to the Christ myth theory, otherwise more or less agreeing with Wdford above. John Carter (talk) 15:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Changes to Scope of Article

It seem that one bone of contention here is the definition of the scope of the article. For a long time the scope has been defined as addressing two overlapping issues - did Jesus actually exist as an actual person, and which of the events in the gospels actually did happen. The article contains a lot of content based on the acceptance of this scope. Now a single editor wants to reconsider the definition of the scope and, if he gets his way, he intends to delete a substantial amount of the existing content.

We already have a main article called Sources for the historicity of Jesus, which discusses in detail the actual evidence - such as it is. We already have a main article on the assertion that Jesus never existed - it's called Christ myth theory. We already have a main article on the events in the gospels that are considered to be true - its called Historical Jesus. All of these overlap substantially. There are also other existing articles on Historicity, Historical method, Biblical criticism, Historiography, Textual criticism and a whole host of articles picking over every aspect of the New Testament, virtually chapter by chapter.

We don't have a dedicated article on the actual existing consensus academic view of the question of Jesus' existence - it's covered in this article. However this article cannot concern itself only with listing the opinions of scholars on the two issues - existence of Jesus and of his various claimed deeds - because that would not be "Historicity" - the article would then need to be renamed Scholarly opinions on the historicity of Jesus. It is essential therefore that we make summary mention also of the actual evidence, as well as of the Christ myth theory and the Historical Jesus, so as to be balanced and neutral as well as true to the word "historicity". However we should not reproduce all the info that already stands in those existing main articles.

What would we gain by that? It seems to me that an article named X should generally contain scholarly opinions on X. Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I could see a purpose to having a list-type article with sections on all the minority/fringe views, maybe similar to Christ myth theory, but don't know that this is necessarily the place for it.John Carter (talk) 20:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

No fringe theories since that is covered by the CMT article. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it covers all of them, particularly some possible NRM views, like as maybe a bad example Joseph Smith saying the early Mormons were Jesus' descendants, while still saying he is a god of a sort. But I don't know how many such divergent views there might be. John Carter (talk) 20:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The question thus is: should we rename this article Scholarly opinions on the historicity of Jesus and narrow the scope, or should we keep it as is? The rules say that unless we have a consensus to change the scope, the scope of the article remains as is.Wdford (talk) 16:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The problems in determining scope are knowing what needs to be discussed and knowing what subtopics might be notable. I do have access to the older Encyclopedia of the Historical Jesus, and will try to see how it structures the relevant content either this week or next, and try to generate a page like Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Encyclopedic articles based on what it contains. Anyone who has access to the more recent Routledge Encyclopedia of the Historical Jesus, which seems to me to be a revised edition, is more than welcome to see what it says as well. John Carter (talk) 17:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Wdford, you seem very confused. The questions you present as the scope have never been discussed, or agreed to by consensus.

Read the first sentence of the article: "The historicity of Jesus concerns the analysis of historical evidence to determine whether Jesus of Nazareth existed as a historical figure, and whether any of the major milestones in his life as portrayed in the gospels can be confirmed as historical events." Now read your purported scope. Notice the difference?

You can't just make up an imaginary consensus for a fantasy scope, and not expect to get called on it. If you want to discuss altering the scope (which I think we should), at least have the intellectual integrity to start with an accurate recitation of the existing scope, rather than a grammatically flawed nebulous interpolation with built-in POV. Fearofreprisal (talk) 18:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm not confused. The scope has been settled by numerous editors over a period of time, and has been stable for ages. That makes it the consensus of the editors who care to be involved in the article. You alone now seek to redefine the scope that has long been stable, so you bear the onus of forging consensus for the change. You are not starting from a blank page here at all. Please bear in mind also that we have an existing article called Historical Jesus, and another existing article called Sources for the historicity of Jesus, which address various "specific concrete temporal and historical circumstances" re Jesus of Nazareth. We don't need to repeat material across articles unnecessarily.

In my opinion this article should consist of the following: A) a section called "Existence" that summarizes the opinions of various scholars on the topic of Jesus' existence; B) a section called "Evidence" that summarizes the main article named Sources for the historicity of Jesus, including the fact that the authenticity of the non-biblical sources is questioned to various degrees; C) a section called "Accepted historical facts" that summarizes the main article called Historical Jesus, i.e. the few events in the gospels that are considered to be true; D) a section that summarizes the main article called Quest for the historical Jesus; and E) a section that summarizes the main article called Christ myth theory. E might perhaps be a sub-section of A. This is largely all in position already, although some of the material is a bit jumbled together, and opinions supportive of existence have been plugged in all over the shop. It has previously been suggested that we should include the fact that most of these scholars are biblical scholars, because few non-biblical scholars get involved in the topic - and those that do are not all unanimous in their opinions. This could also be part of Section A. Wdford (talk) 21:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Martijn Meijering above that "scholarly opinions" is an unneeded qualifier that wouldn't affect the scope of the article. Almost any article that uses academic references could be titled "scholarly opinions on", like Scholarly opinions on the Shakespeare authorship question instead of Shakespeare authorship question—an FA that might serve as a model for how to construct this article. I also think that Wdford is right: a number of experienced, reasonable editors are trying to accommodate a single POV warrior, to the detriment of the article. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

And if that problem continues any further I think at this point ANI is the obvious solution. John Carter (talk) 22:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Wdford -- Since this section is about changes to the scope of the article, and you've actually proposed a changed scope - unrelated to the topic of the article - I'll also propose a changed scope:

The scope of the Historicity of Jesus article should be the Historicity of Jesus.

I'm interested in hearing comments in favor of or opposed to this. Fearofreprisal (talk) 22:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Nonsensical, as it clearly uses circular reasoning. John Carter (talk) 23:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

User:John Carter is absolutely right that the quotation is absurd. It doesn't define what the scope of the article is. A word or phrase should be defined or scoped without self-reference. Absurd proposals are not as bad as personal attacks, but they are not useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The real question maybe should be: What needs to be addressed in this article that isn't in any of the other articles? Is this article needed at all? If someone says yes, then what should be in it that isn't elsewhere? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Historicity of Jesus is actually the overview article. Quest for the historical Jesus and Christ myth theory seem to be legitimate content forks of Historicity of Jesus, enabling a more in-depth treatment of each topic. But if there isn't a main overview article, the content forks function more as POV forks resulting from failed consensus here. The more I look at the FA Shakespeare authorship question, the more I see it as a template for this article. See especially the intro: the FA doesn't clutter its intro by naming scholars. It summarizes the scholarly positions. That article was a notoriously hard battle that got media coverage, and as with this article, some editors failed at first to distinguish between arguing a position and trying to prove it right, and neutrally representing the state of the question. Wdford's outline above is actually rather in line with the approach at the FA. So Historicity of Jesus is the main article, and Sources for the historicity of Jesus, Christ myth theory, and Quest for the historical Jesus explore aspects of this article in greater detail. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

To answer your question, Robert, what should be in this article is the Historicity of Jesus.

Not the Christ Myth Theory

Not the Quest for the Historical Jesus

Not the Existence of Jesus

Fearofreprisal (talk) 03:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I very strongly suggest a certain obvious POV pusher refrain from further presumptuous pontification and if I were that editor I would not expect any more warnings regarding misconduct before an ANI discussion on that editor's conduct is initiated. John Carter (talk) 15:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

And if I were you I would show a lot more courage and name that alleged POV pusher. Otherwise that's a pointless post. Go on. Show some guts. HiLo48 (talk) 22:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you find the concept of actually keeping this article focused on the Historicity of Jesus disturbing?

Thanks for your advice, but I think I'll pass. If you really think that "presumptuous pontification" is grounds for ANI, fee free to go there. This ain't my first rodeo. Fearofreprisal (talk) 17:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

So in other words, Fearofreprisal knows the behavior is problematic, but also how to modulate continual low-grade obstruction to avoid egregious behavior that would yield quickly actionable diffs to cite. This ain't the first bronco I've encountered either. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The Way Forward

It seems that both Tgeorgescu and Martijn Meijering agree that we should distinguish between biblical scholars and non-biblical historians (who don’t generally comment on the topic because they don’t give a rat’s ass.) I agree with this position also. Smeat75 has noted that a handful of non-biblical historians have weighed in on the side of historicity, and Martijn Meijering has noted that a handful of non-biblical historians have weighed in on the side of non-historicity, leaving the question seemingly quite evenly balanced among non-biblical historians. Surely that is something we can build on towards resolving the neutrality concern? Wdford (talk) 11:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

What scholars? Do you mean the vague list of names in Carrier's article? Names that are not attached to any specific references or quotations? Paul B (talk)

Not all reliable sources are scholars. Fearofreprisal (talk) 12:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Is that supposed to mean something? Paul B (talk) 20:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Judging from his earlier and not yet retracted claims, he thinks that any author finding a historical Jesus plausible must be religiously biased and should be treated as unreliable.

Re OP, if we gathered a list of all possible sources, included their official title, and a quote or summary, that might work. The biggest trouble would be excluding outright polemic sources, or at least relegating them to another section. Obviously Sunday school sources (like most of the selection from Zondervan) would be excluded, while something from a high-quality or historic opinionated publisher like Prometheus Books or the Society of Biblical Literature might be included in a "popular works" section if the author or the book is notable enough to have acquired its own article. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Paul B - WP:SCHOLAR redirects to a page on WP:NOTABILITY guidelines for academics (e.g., scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars.) Some editors try to use the term "scholar" as a filter to exclude people without academic appointments from being used as sources in this article. Fearofreprisal (talk) 21:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Scholars could produce reliable sources without being themselves notable enough for having their own Wikipedia articles. But a scholar still has to have:

• credentials (mostly a PhD from a properly accredited university);
• a paid teaching position (at an accredited university);
• research output in reputable peer-reviewed journals (preferably ISI-indexed). Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Where to those criteria come from? Fearofreprisal (talk) 22:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

They are simply a rule of thumb for deciding who's a scholar and who isn't one. Of course, emeritus professors would also qualify as scholars, even if they no longer have paid teaching positions. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I see no support for that definition of scholar on WP. I'm not disputing that it might be somewhere... but I can't find it. I can't see any reason why we shouldn't use the plain meaning the term [1] Fearofreprisal (talk) 22:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Not everyone who fancies himself a scholar is a scholar. We have to draw the line somewhere. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

So far as I know, there is no generally accepted bright-line test for scholars. Fearofreprisal (talk) 00:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Ian, it would be simpler to simply eliminate using Christians and Muslims as sources about the historicity of Christ, or, failing that, to segregate their view into a "religious perspective" section. Believing someone to be divine is an insurmountable bias when studying whether the subject actually existed or not.—Kww(talk) 01:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I looked over some archived Administrator Noticeboard discussions on this subject, and the bottom line is that we can't use religious background or POV as a criterion for whether someone is a reliable source. It's a non-starter. Sources can be biased. We can't. Fearofreprisal (talk) 01:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

That's simply not true. Any biased source can be treated as a biased source, even if it's because of a religious bias. There's been some dramafests in the past (and no shortage of Christians and Muslims that won't admit their own bias), but no consensus to that effect. Btw, since you were replying to me, you had about three extra colons in there.—Kww(talk) 02:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Would you have the articles on atheism and agnosticism written using theological sources? Or would you consider it wrong if someone said we should do so because sources potentially by atheists are incapable of being unbiased toward the subject? Shall we exclude sources by scholars who happen to be Buddhist from the article on Siddhartha Gautama? Or Jewish authors from the article on the Holocaust? Tom Harpur (admittedly not a scholar), professes Christianity and yet denies a historical Jesus, so the assumption that a Christian automatically only accepts the plausibility of a historical Jesus out of only religious bias is ignorant at best. Should we exclude Dawkins and Hitchens because their views may have more to do with opposition to religion, or because they're not scholars in relevant fields?

But what do I know, I'm a Christian, so any argument I make on the matter should be dismissed on grounds of religious bias, even if the exact same argument made a non-Christian or non-Muslim was perfectly reasonable -- which isn't bigoted at all. Heck, if a non-Christian or non-Muslim editor repeats my argument, we might as well dismiss it because a Christian said it first, so it's just crazy religious bias, which totally wouldn't be bigoted and stupid. I mean, after all, we're only discussing exclusing voices onthe grounds of religion instead of understood merit, that's not bigotry, right? Ian.thomson (talk) 02:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I did not say that an Christian only accepts the plausibility of a historical Jesus because of religious faith. I said that being Christian or Muslim creates an insurmountable bias in favor of finding that Christ existed. Being biased doesn't automatically make someone wrong, it simply means that his opinion on a topic can't be weighed in the same way as an unbiased source. If you did a survey and found that a majority of Buddhist and atheist scholars believed that Christ was a historic figure, wouldn't you find that more meaningful than an affirmation that Christians and Muslims believe that one of the central figures of their faith isn't imaginary? —Kww(talk) 02:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I have never been able to understand how WP:COI allows Christian editors to promote a Christian POV on Wikipedia. If someone with a loyalty to a particular commercial entity wanted to impose that entity's marketing position here, it would be completely unacceptable. We surely have to say the same thing about editors with a loyalty to a religion. HiLo48 (talk) 02:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

To be sure, the same argument holds for all religious persuasions: Christians have an agenda, Muslims have an agenda, Jews have an agenda, Buddhists have an agenda, Hindus have an agenda, agnostics have an agenda, atheists have an agenda, Satanists have an agenda, etc., etc. There would be nobody left to write unbiased about religion. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

This isn't an article about religion. At least according to its title, it's about whether Jesus of Nazareth existed. When it comes to religious perspectives about him, we already separate opinions by the religion of the author.—Kww(talk) 03:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, the argument was about Christians and Muslims having an agenda in respect to the existence of Jesus and atheists and agnostics having no agenda in respect to it. However, I agree that the atheist and agnostic Bart Ehrman does not fit this agenda pattern. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I think everyone in this discussion needs to look up the word "bias" and understand that it is quite different from "agenda" or "wrong". It simply means that some influence pushes your decision making in one direction more strongly than another. Some biases are weak, some are quite strong, but they aren't a sign of lack of intelligence or presence of an agenda.—Kww(talk) 04:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we are all biased, one way or another. The critical thing is to be aware of one's biases, and make a conscious effort to not let them influence our editing. HiLo48 (talk) 04:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

As much as we should all be aware of bias in general, this article in particular relies so heavily on the opinion of scholars. If a scholar can clearly explain the scientific basis for their opinion, it doesn't matter so much what their religion is. We can see how they came to that conclusion. This article does not contain much of anything about the methods used to come to the conclusions that are presented. I think this is a significant part of why there is so much concern about the personal beliefs and biases of the opinion-holders.Blackthorne2k (talk) 05:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

There are 33 pages of archives for this talk page that show the futility of trying to fix this article's ideological bias through POV balancing. The only way I can see to do it is through scope. (See Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus#Scope_of_this_article.) The scope says the article is about "analysis of historical evidence," so a scholar's sound-bite opinion that "yes, of course Jesus existed" or "no way he existed" is irrelevant absent that analysis, and doesn't belong here. But, what does belong here are scholars' analyses of Josephus, Tacitus, or any other historical evidence. So, that scholar can say, for example, "based on my analysis of Annals, I believe it reliably shows that Jesus existed." Minority viewpoints (for example, discussing interpolation) can be included subject to WP:DUE. By allowing only material directly related to the analysis of historical evidence, the quality of the content in this article will be far higher. FWIW, even if the article included only pure Christian POV analysis of the historical evidence, it'd still be a lot better than the existing paragraphs of statements that "virtually all respectable competent and good-looking scholars believe that Jesus certainly existed, and think anyone who doesn't is an idiot." Try this: Go through the article, consider what it would look like if everything but actual analysis of historical evidence were removed. Fearofreprisal (talk) 10:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

These suggestions all make sense, but the implementation is going to be difficult. There is no consensus for changing the scope, so let's try to fix the existing article by bringing the content into line with the existing scope. Deleting the opinions of bible scholars is going to be reverted and probably banned, so best we start by leaving everything alone, and simply adding a new section called "Analysis of the evidence". We can put here scholarly discussions re the authenticity of the Josephus passage, and discussions re the archeology etc etc. Once that section has been fully fleshed out, we can look to fixing something else. However let's maybe start with adding rather than deleting. Comments? Wdford (talk) 14:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

It would certainly be nice to see anything at all of a scientific nature.Blackthorne2k (talk) 06:13, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Related discussion at ANI

There is now a discussion related to conduct here at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Tendentious POV pushing at Historicity of Jesus.John Carter (talk) 19:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Collapsed under Talk Page Guidelines. offtopic commentary

:To fill-in those who didn't follow the conversation at ANI (Administrator's Noticeboard Incident - a place for reporting and discussing incidents that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors.) [2], here's a quick summary:

1. User:John Carter started the ANI, charging me with "Tendentious POV pushing," but didn't provide WP:diffs. (Actually, he provided one, but it was to someone other than me. He admitted privately that he had confused us.)
2. User:Ian.thomson pointed out some other things he felt I'd done wrong. He did provide diffs.
3. User:Cynwolfe said that I was disrupting the article. The only diff he provided was to me calling-out John Carter on his threat to start an ANI.
4. There was quite a lot of talk about things that had nothing to do with the reason for the ANI, including bias among Christians.
5. I responded to John Carter, pointing out that the only evidence or diff he provided was a link written by someone else. (I've since asked him on the side to tell me what POV he thinks I'm pushing. He hasn't told me yet.)
6. An Admin finally asked "What admin action is required or desired here!?! 99% of this thread has NO ANI board value." Another Admin said "ENOUGH. This has been a phenomenally unproductive snipe-and-gripe but nobody's doing anything blockable," then closed the ANI.

So, lots of sound and fury... and mostly a waste of time.

Fearofreprisal (talk) 05:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The last sentence is certainly true. Perhaps you should focus on article construction. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Interesting idea. I've been working on that. What have you been working on? [3] Fearofreprisal (talk) 19:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:TPG

This page exists to develop the article and no other reason. Comments which cannot be seen to do so should be removed. John Carter (talk) 22:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

What is historicity?

Maybe we should start at the beginning: Anyone here have an idea what historicity actually is? If so, would you care to share your understanding?

It's pretty important, because it's hard to go much further with this article if there's no consensus on this fundamental question. Fearofreprisal (talk) 20:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Pease read WP:NOTFORUM. We are an encyclopedia which deals start with sourced material. Therefore what we think is not important but rather what reliable sources dealing with the subject say that matters. Please provide some sources directly relevant to the topic at hand.John Carter (talk) 21:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

What on earth was the point of that reply? Completely pointless in my book. And aggressive to boot. Fearofreprisal has a very good point. If we don't agree on a universal, clear definition for the term, it's bound to lead to there being lots of argument of what should be in the article. Oh hang, that's what we already have! Right now, the article has a rather strange beginning, using the word "concerns" in a way that doesn't imply a terribly precise definition. Wouldn't it be nice if we had one? HiLo48 (talk) 22:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes it would be nice to have a sourced definition of the term which did not exist in the article when the question was asked and was added after the fact. Although the comment I am responding to seemed to have even less relevance I tend to believe that a scope determined by the way the phrase has been used in reliable sources as I have indicated below may well be a better indication than a definition of only one word in the title. That would probably agree with the sources that have used the full phrase as I have indicated below. John Carter (talk) 22:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The definition should be relevant to the topic at hand, namely, the historicity of Jesus. Using sources that do not mention Jesus, while certainly better than having no sources at all, clearly isn't the best solution, particularly in light of the sources mentioned below that seem to use the phrase "Historicity of Jesus" to refer to something other than a dictionary definition of historicity. Maybe some of those do us the favor of actually defining what they mean by that phrase? Huon (talk) 22:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48: I'm not particularly bothered by John Carter's incivilityremarks. He's been sanctioned for it in the past, and he's admitted that he can't control his temper -- so I'll try to ignore it, and deal with the matter of building an encyclopedia.

John Carter: Regarding WP:NOTAFORUM -- it seems inapposite in this context. But, if it's important to you, here are some relevant citations to reliable sources regarding the definition of historicity:

• Wandersee, J. H. (1992), The historicality of cognition: Implications for science education research. J. Res. Sci. Teach., 29: 423–434.
• Harre, R., & Moghaddam, F.M. (2006). Historicity, social psychology, and change. In Rockmore, T. & Margolis, J. (Eds.), History, historicity, and science (pp. 94-120). London: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
• Jones, Michael S., "Lucian Blaga, The Historical Phenomenon: An Excerpt from The Historical Being" (2012). Faculty Publications and Presentations. Paper 1.
• Herbert Marcuse, Hegel’s Ontology and the Theory of Historicity, trans. by Seyla Benhabib (Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, England: The MIT Press, 1987)
• Bunnin, N., & Yu, J. (2004). The Blackwell dictionary of Western philosophy. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub
• William J. Hamblin, professor of history at Brigham Young University. Two part article on historicity
• Hall, J. (2007). Historicity and Sociohistorical Research. In W. Outhwaite, & S. Turner (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Social Science Methodology. (pp. 82-102). London, England: SAGE Publications Ltd.
• Hall, J. (2007). History, methodologies, and the study of religion. In J. Beckford, & N. Demerath (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of the sociology of religion. (pp. 167-189). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

If that's not sufficient, I can give you more sources. Fearofreprisal (talk) 22:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC) Edited 23:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Huon: I agree that the definition of "historicity" should be relevant to the topic of "the historicity of Jesus." I have found no source, religious or secular, suggesting a distinct definition for historicity in the context of Jesus, but have found sources indicating that such a demarcation doesn't exist (See Hall, J. (2007). History, methodologies, and the study of religion. In J. Beckford, & N. Demerath (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of the sociology of religion. (pp. 167-189). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.) Fearofreprisal (talk) 22:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't actually see where Huon agreed with you although I do see how you continue yourself to continue to engage in personal attacks as per WP:NPA. I also believe notability as per WP:NOTABILITY may well be relevant as the works to be used to establish notability have to be significantly about the topic rather than just one topic among several they discuss. Although it is nice to finally see some sources I am far from sure that they necessarily establish this view as the most common usage of the title phrase or even potentially of the notability of that particular topic. John Carter (talk) 22:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article (See WP:NCC). Fearofreprisal (talk) 23:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

But they do apply to whether the article on a given topic should exist at all and I have not seen any evidence to date to indicate that there is necessarily sufficient demonstrated notability of the "historicity" of Jesus and certainly don't see how a source on Hegel's philosophy can be used to establish the notability of the historicity of Jesus. A review of the sources below however I believe would be more than enough to establish the notability of an article about the question of whether or not Jesus existed.John Carter (talk) 23:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

John Carter - It's just embarrassing when you make statements (such as "I...don't see how a source on Hegel's philosophy can be used to establish the notability of the historicity of Jesus") without even taking a moment to do a little research.

Hegel’s thought has profoundly influenced modern theology. This influence is often only implicit, but several theologians have sought to bring Hegel explicitly into the contemporary theological discussion. The most stimulating studies of this kind include:

• Hans Küng, The Incarnation of God: An Introduction to Hegel's Theological Thought as Prolegomena to a Future Christology, trans. J. R. Stephenson (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1987); xv, 601 pp. This profound and wide-ranging exploration of Hegel’s theological thought focuses especially on Hegel’s vision of the historicity of God’s being. You can also find a crisp summary of the book's argument in Hans Küng, Does God Exist? An Answer for Today, trans. Edward Quinn (Garden City: Doubleday, 1980), pp. 127-188.
• Eberhard Jüngel, God as the Mystery of the World: On the Foundation of the Theology of the Crucified One in the Dispute between Theism and Atheism, trans. Darrell L. Guder (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983); vxi, 414 pp. This brilliant work on the doctrine of God includes a detailed analysis of Hegel’s concept of the “death of God”, and of the significance of this concept for theological reflection.
• Peter C. Hodgson, God in History: Shapes of Freedom (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1989); 287 pp. This work offers a creative response to postmodern thought through a deep engagement with Hegel’s trinitarian and historical conception of God’s being. Hodgson is a leading authority on Hegel, and has been an editor and translator of Hegel's Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion.

And for a thorough exposition of Hegel’s theological thought, we now have Hodgson’s important new work: Peter C. Hodgson, Hegel and Christian Theology: A Reading of the Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005); 318 pp.

— [4]

Fearofreprisal (talk) 23:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I would think your jumping to conclusions might be even more embarrassing. WP:DUE and related pages are the most directly relevant guides here and it indicates that material for inclusion is judged based on the degree of attention given in independent reliable sources directly relating to the subject at hand. As none of the sources you indicate seem to relate directly to the subject of this article they cannot really be used to indicate relevance or degree of attention to give those ideas in this particular article. Some of us are trying to find sources specifically about this topic to help in such determination. Please allow us to do so without further disruption until we are finished. We do not need to engage in wholesale revisions immediately and that is generally a bad idea to act on anyway. John Carter (talk) 15:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The Incarnation of God, page 465 and 466 may be just the citation you've been looking for. Too bad you already decided that it can't be used, based on your odd interpretation of WP:DUE. Fearofreprisal (talk) 16:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

If you honestly believe that being mentioned on just two pages in a single book of clearly over four hundred pages is sufficient to establish the notability of that topic then I believe that it would very much be in your own interests to thoroughly acquaint yourself with all aspects of WP:NOTABILITY and also with WP:CIR. The comments in the last sentence are frankly beneath contempt and not deserving a direct reply as they seem to indicate you indulging in pure emotionalism. If you believe your interpretation is justifiable you could of course take your concerns to the appropriate noticeboard which in this case would probably be the NPOV noticeboard. Should you choose not to do so that could reasonably be seen as perhaps indicating that you may yourself expect a negative response there. John Carter (talk) 23:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

"Historicity” of Jesus or “Historicity of Jesus”?

The phrase seems to have been widely used as a phrase in the early part of the 20th century in works relating to the historical reality or lack of same of Jesus. JSTOR returns as early returns for a relevance search of the phrase in addition to reviews of the work The Historicity of Jesus by Shirley Jackson Case the following:

Is Belief in the Historicity of Jesus Indispensable to Christian Faith? by Douglas C. Macintosh The American Journal of Theology, Vol. 15, No. 3 (Jul., 1911), pp. 362-372

The Historicity of Jesus an Estimate of the Negative Argument by Shirley Jackson Case The American Journal of Theology, Vol. 15, No. 1 (Jan., 1911), pp. 20-42

Is Belief in the Historicity of Jesus Indispensable to Christian Faith? by Douglas C. Macintosh The American Journal of Theology, Vol. 16, No. 1 (Jan., 1912), pp. 106-110

THE HISTORICITY OF JESUS. IN COMMENT UPON THE THEORY OF PROF. WILLIAM BENJAMIN SMITH by Paul Carus The Monist, Vol. 20, No. 4 (OCTOBER, 1910), pp. 633-638

Is Belief in the Historicity of Jesus Indispensable to Christian Faith? by Shailer Mathews The American Journal of Theology, Vol. 15, No. 4 (Oct., 1911), pp. 614-617

Books on the Historicity of Jesus a review of The Historical Jesus by John M. Robertson and The Jesus Problem by John M. Robertson by Clayton R. Bowen The American Journal of Theology, Vol. 23, No. 3 (Jul., 1919), pp. 378-381

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE HISTORICITY PROBLEM by K. C. Anderson The Monist, Vol. 24, No. 4 (OCTOBER, 1914), pp. 634-636

and probably others

I think a reasonable case could be made that the phrase is maybe? among the more commonly used phrases to describe the topic of the matter of the existence of Jesus and may perhaps be the most commonly used phrase to describe that subject. It certainly seems to be according to the JSTOR returne above the most common use of the phrase as a phrase. John Carter (talk) 21:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTAFORUM!!!! HiLo48 (talk) 22:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

John Carter doesn't like me suggesting that in starting this thread immediately after criticising someone else for doing something very similar he is acting as if he owns this article, so I won't suggest that. But I do really wonder why he did it? It's not helpful to have two threads on the one topic. Can we somehow merge the two? HiLo48 (talk) 22:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

It is not the same topic. That is about the definition of the term historicity. This is about the definition of historicity which basically no one has argued. This is about the use of the phrase as a whole which as I have said seems to be from what I can see about the most frequent use of the phrase as a specific phrase. While they both relate in a way to the definition of scope of this article they are on different topics. Although I do welcome the humor in context about "helpful" comments :) this thread as a separate topic seems tomore directly relevant to this particular article.John Carter (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

"That is about the definition of the term historicity. This is about the definition of historicity which basically no one has argued." You want to try explaining that again?

If you can find reliable sources to support your contention, then cite them. Otherwise, can you explain why everything you've said here is not WP:OR? Fearofreprisal (talk) 22:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I find the above commentary extremely hard if not impossible to see the logic of as it seems to be indicating that the fact that I have found sources specifically using the term which is the title of the article where others have not and despite that I am the one being accused of doing something "original." Pretty much by definition, if it is in relevant reliable sources specifically relevant to the topic it cannot be called "original." Please explain exactly how it is "original" for me to find extant reliable sources which use the phrase which is the title of this article.John Carter (talk) 23:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not original for you to find "extant reliable sources which use the phrase which is the title of this article." What is WP:OR (and WP:SYN) is your speculation ("I think a reasonable case could be made...") based the results of your JSTOR search. Fearofreprisal (talk) 23:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

On consideration, this pissing match seems like a real waste of time. Let's just say you win. Fearofreprisal (talk) 00:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

It isn't me who wins it is the policies and guidelines which determine content. If you could produce sources as WP:BURDEN pretty much requires of you to demonstrate the specific notability of the question of whether academics are capable of reviewing this question without being overwhelming influenced by personal bias no one would have any problems about seeing that article exist. You have yet to do that so far as I can see and I think it would probably be a more productive use of your time to attempt to find the sources to establish the notability of that topic than to continue what you have been doing here.John Carter (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request ( I honestly can't figure out what User:John Carter is trying to say. Especially that last comment. Help? ):

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Historicity of Jesus and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

I also cannot figure out from John Carter's comments exactly what he is trying to say. Especially the second sentence starting with "If you could produce..." is too long and very hard to understand. I would suggest that John Carter rewrite the last comment and especially the second sentence to say exactly what he means. I understand that the discussion has been going on for a long time and people might be a bit frustrated. Kingsindian (talk) 21:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Fear has been arguing for some time about how he believes the article's scope should be changed. When he was recently asked to present sources to support the specific notability of that topic he was at least to date unable to find any. That was more or less the topic of the last sentence. No one has any real objections to seeing such an article exist but it would be probably a different article than this one. Still waiting to finish the list of articles from the encyclopedia I mentioned earlier - I got around halfway through when the divinity school's library closed early because class isn't in session right now. John Carter (talk) 22:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

You said "sources to support the specific notability of that topic..." What topic? I really can't figure out what you're talking about. Fearofreprisal (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The one you have been wanting to change it to per the sections above. The one you have still so far as I can tell found no sources to establish the specific notabiity of. Regarding your difficulties of understanding, well, you seem perhaps to have had difficulties understanding such things as WP:NOTABILITY, WP:WEIGHT, and other similar subjects as well.John Carter (talk) 00:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: can you help here again? I'm not trying to be intentionally obtuse, but I still can't figure out what John Carter is talking about. Fearofreprisal (talk) 01:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Fearofreprisal and John Carter: I am afraid that after re-reading the whole section, I still have no idea at all what is going on, and even less of what John Carter is saying. His last 2-3 comments still make no sense to me. I accept that this is perhaps because I am unfamiliar with the topic and the discussion has been going on for a long time. But perhaps John Carter should consider the possibility that his statements genuinely do not make sense. Perhaps they do in his mind, but not here. To Fearofreprisal, feel free to list your complaint on 3O again, if you wish. I will not be making any more comments, because I don't seem to understand the whole topic.

Kingsindian (talk) 01:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Kingsindian. Fearofreprisal (talk) 01:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Several other opinions have been solicited as well. This section was started to establish one of the to date few ways I have seen this phrase used as a phrase in independent reliable sources. Unfortnately as a thorough review of the existing talk page would reveal that is not the definition or scope of the article Fear personally wants to see although as has also already been at least implied there seems to be a very real question whether he can establish the notability of that topic as per WP:NOTABILITY and other relevant guides. Therefore he seems to be arguing that this article's content should be changed to reflect the scope he wishes to determine based on the definition of the word historicity. This section is an early effort of an ongoing attempt to find out how the phrase is used and what phrases are used to describe which topics so to better determine application of WP:COMMONNAME and other relevant guides. It would be very helpful if Fear were to allow that effort to continue without further questionable demands for immediate gratification on his part. John Carter (talk) 15:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

You keep on saying "that topic," but you seem unwilling or incapable of saying what "that topic" is. Do you mean the "historicity of Jesus?" Fearofreprisal (talk) 16:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Please refrain from trying to put words in other people's mouths. It is rather dubiously acceptabɛe behavior. As you have apparently made no more attempt to review the extensive archives of this page than I have it would probably be best if we refrain from attempting to impose on our preconceived notions on what we as individuals think the initial scope of this article when it was first created was.John Carter (talk) 15:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I hope this might clear up some things

Ok, it's looking like the types of sources that have been used, suggested, mentioned, or even imagined could be placed on a spectrum:

1. Historicity only - Sources that discuss Historicity in particular but do not concern Jesus either directly or indirectly

2. Historicity about Early Christianity - Sources that discuss Historicity in particular but also focus on (or at least discuss) early Christianity

3. Historicity of Jesus - Sources that explicitly use the phrase "Historicity of Jesus" or at least "Historicity" and "Jesus" (particularly those where it is their main topic)

4. Jesus in History - Sources that discuss Jesus in the context of history (either for, against, or agnostic)

5. Jesus only - Sources that discuss Jesus without the context of history

For purposes of this discussion, I only mean sources that already meet WP:RS, so Billy-Joe-Bob's Sunday School website, while being type 5, is absolutely not what I have in mind for the following.

Sources of the third type, Historicity of Jesus sources, absolutely must be used in this article per WP:DUE and WP:NOR. It's so important that I must mention it out of order and in its own line.

At the other end of acceptability, type 5 sources (Jesus only), obviously do not belong here (as most of the other sources can establish that by "Jesus," we do not mean someone in the kitchen at my favorite restaurant). So far as I can tell, no one has any reasonable objections there.

I have seen disagreement over whether source types 1, 2, and/or 4 could be used or included. Type 1, Historicity Only, should only be used in explaining Historicity in the introduction if that none of the other sources define it. Any other use (such as using it to rationalize inclusion or exclusion of sources or comment on them) is OR (for being beyond mere summarizing a source in isolation). Type 2, Historicity of Early Christianity, probably isn't appropriate except where it discusses Jesus (again, either for, against, or agnostic). Type 4, Jesus in History, must either be included or excluded in its entirety (though with due weight). If we include it, we should not argue "this author holds X bias, or holds X position, and so cannot be included," but we should (as with all other sources) merely separate authors according to academic authors (those who hold any sort of position at an accredited academic institution, those published by academic publishers such as university presses or Routledge, and even those published in academic journals), popular authors (who meet WP:GNG just to keep things from getting trashy), and perhaps a middle category for higher-quality polemic groups such as Prometheus Books and Society of Biblical Literature (if we don't include them in popular authors due). It may be necessary to exclude all popular and polemic authors, but I can see this creating more problems in the long run with users trying to WP:RGW for their favorite author or POV.

If we are going to overhaul this article, we need to:

• gather all sources currently in the article, all sources purposed for the article, and all other sources that could be used in the article,
• classify them on the spectrum,
• exclude all type 5 sources, any type 2 sources that do not discuss Jesus (and, if any sources define historicity, all type 1 sources),
• establish whether or not we will include or exclude all type 4 sources collectively (not include some but not others),
• classify the sources according to academic, popular, and high-quality polemic authors,
• eliminate non-notable popular authors,
• come up with relevant quotes or summaries of individual authors, listing their credentials (whatever they may be),
• summarize portions of larger works dedicated to the subject (such as the Routledge Encyclopedia of the Historical Jesus, the primary focus of which, according to its Library of Congress data, is the historicity of Jesus) not to give undue weight but to fill out the article as more than a list of quotes,
• cobble it all together into an article.

I'm not saying this to discourage anyone by claiming "too much work" or anything like that, but merely listing each step to a high-quality (potentially good), reliably sourced, neutral article that should be acceptable to anyone who respects community consensus, who wants to prevent any particular POV from using this article as a soapbox, and who wants to make sure that this article maintains an academic focus. It will not satisfy anyone here to right great wrongs or present their views as WP:THETRUTH, but oh well. Rewriting the article by adding or removing a few sources at a time will end up with a half-assed piecemeal article as different folks try to continually balance it off. Either we re-write the whole damn thing from the ground up after we've gathered enough sources, or we accept that while the article may have flaws, it is heading in the right direction.

It may be necessary to create a talk subpage or a few (say "talk:Historicity of Jesus/source listing," "/source sorting," "/quote listing," and "talk:Historicity of Jesus/overhaul draft"; or at least "/sources and quotes" and "/draft").

Ian.thomson (talk) 16:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

FWIW I've been going through the first edition of the EotHJ and making a list of all its articles by title named subarticles and length. So far I don't see the word historicity used specifically in connection to Jesus per se although it is used in other contexts. After today because the divinity school library I'm using is closed on weekends while class is not in session. I'll check other religion reference sources and see if they ever use the phrase and what they use it to refer to as well. I do however seem to see a definite coverage of historicity of the gospels as potentially a separate topic. John Carter (talk) 17:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Let's get real. This article will not establish the truth or falsity of the historicity of Jesus, and it is not meant to. This article is not about WP:RGW, especially as regards the inclusion of [insert your favorite list of WP:RS], or about maintaining "an academic focus". The focus is religious, not academic, because that is the topic. WP:RSes are needed, religious AND academic. Their inclusion should be a focus of editing activity, not a focus of the article.

Nor is the article about WP:THETRUTH, whatever that might mean to any individual. Opinions are opinions, sometimes useful in cordial collaborative work, but never in an atmosphere of contention, ax-grinding, or "I'm right and you're wrong". But WP:THETRUTH is about editing. Still, the article is about opinions, conflicting opinions, held widely, by uninformed and informed alike, including Christians and atheists and scholars and academics and WP:RSes. After 2000 years, there is not enough extant "evidence", artifacts, or documents (few enough even in that time) to provide "facts" for any "proofs". I'm not sure anyone today could make an airtight case that Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin landed on the moon in 1969, though I am completely convinced they did and would consider it idiotic to reject what evidence there is. But be it that case, or Jesus' physical existence on earth as a human being, both depend in some (differing) degrees upon acceptance (or rejection) of personal testimony from the time, or as near as we can get to the time. No research or scholarly activity can do more than evaluate what survives, and that means no definitive answers, ever. Forget about objectivity. Everyone has predispositions and prejudices of one kind or another, and scholars are not exempt, even in their scholarly opinion. More useful is a skill called impartiality, which can be learned and developed. When one finds it in a source, the source becomes that much more reliable. It's not an absolute; it's a principle, and a goal. And I think that is a key element that editing activity on this article should focus on.

If we do so, then WP:NPOV will enable us to find neutral wording to express the broad range of opinions we can expect to encounter in the WP:RSes, both current, and those we wish to include anew. Likewise, we can better judge issues about WP:UNDUE or WP:OR or WP:IDHT or any of the multitude of other questions. But this continual whining about the current state of the article or its current set of WP:RS is just so much WP:POINTY-ness. Don't argue about a rewrite; instead, start to do the rewriting. Do it a piece at a time, in consultation, working through individual issues one at a time in order to achieve consensus and understanding. Overburdening article edits or discussions alike is disruptive even when it manages to be civil. There is no deadline on WP. Get off the reformer bandwagon and give sufficient time for the community absorb new issues that don't meet with immediate acceptance. This talk page's wall of text is unconstructive. Pick a starting point and stay focused. Big change requires priorities and steps. How about considering "historicity" in the title in the light of WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, especially naturalness? Evensteven (talk) 20:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Evensteven: You wrote "The focus is religious, not academic, because that is the topic." That's an example where a perfectly reasonable sounding personal opinion really needs to be backed up by a reliable source.

"...Strauss decisively combined the question of the historicity of God in the Hegelian-speculative sense with that of the historicity of Jesus in the historico-critical sense, so that the latter has since become one of the great, still unresolved issues of theology in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries." [Emphasis added]

— Hans Küng, The Incarnation of God: An Introduction to Hegel's Theological Thought as Prolegomena to a Future Christology, trans. J. R. Stephenson (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1987); xv, page 465, emphasis added.

While the historicity of Jesus is a major question in theology, all theologians that I've found who express an opinion on the subject agree that is a matter within the realm of history, not religion. (If you'd like more citations, I can provide them.) I'm certainly interested in seeing other citations that might disagree with this. But personal opinions devoid of reference to reliable sources have no place here or in the article.

Among scholars -- both religious and irreligious -- who actually express specific opinions regarding the historicity of Jesus, there is actually a surprising amount of agreement. The only time it gets confusing is when editors here cherrypick quotations that are based on "historical Jesus research," which are modern religious constructions based on the Synoptic gospels, rather than historical evidence (citations available.)

Regarding WP:NAMINGCRITERIA and "Historicity of Jesus" -- I believe the term meets all five criteria: Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness, and Consistency. If other editors want to dispute this, we can certainly discuss it. (Of course, I have citations available.)

Regarding "starting to do the rewriting" -- I've been doing just that, and and continue to do so. (In fact, I may be the only one currently making substantive, well-researched, NPOV changes to the article.) However -- other editors here have insisted that I discuss and gain consensus *before* I make changes, and they have deleted my edits for failing to do so. [5] [6][7] What would you prefer that I do -- make changes first and ignite an edit war, or discuss changes first, and create a "wall of text?"

Regarding priorities and steps: My next priority is the first sentence of the article -- which I have flagged as "needs citation." I plan to change it to reflect the majority scholarly viewpoint (with citations), but I can almost guarantee that a bunch of people will scream their heads off when I do. They won't offer any alternative wording or constructions, and won't offer any relevant citations. They'll just say "no, you can't change it, because 'consensus.'" So, what then? Fearofreprisal (talk) 22:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC) Minor Edit 22:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Ian.thomson: I think you're on the right track... mostly.

• Your category 1, "Historicity" is useful for definition purposes. I think you'll find that most theologists and historians are in fairly close agreement with respect to the definition of historicity, in a historico-critical sense.
• Your category 2, "Historicity about Early Christianity" is relevant only insofar is it concerns the historicity of Jesus, not otherwise.
• Your category 3, "Historicity of Jesus," is, of course, the heart of the article. But a source that discusses the historicity of Jesus may also discuss topics outside the context of historicity (e.g., the nature of Jesus.) How to you propose to handle these situations?
• Your category 4, "Jesus in History" confuses "historicity" and "history." If you need citations describing the difference, let me know.

Fearofreprisal (talk) 22:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Your opinions are, of course, your own concern but in no way supersede policies or guidelines, particularly considering that none of the statements you made above have been sourced and your history of demanding that this article conform not to policies or guidelines but to what is your own preconceptions of what it should be about. Regarding your continuing insistence that this article must be changed according to your own personal schedule, that belief is in no way supported by any policies or guidelines and is something that the ArbCom would certainly take into account were this matter to be brought to them. Your ongoing insistence that everybody else must act according to your time schedule is extremely problematic. You have been advised repeatedly that your time might be better spent trying to find sufficient sourcing to establish notability for an article on the "historicity" of Jesus according to your definition. That would be a more constructive use of your time than these problematic postings here, and your choosing not to do so suggests that you have concluded that you would not be able to establish sufficient notability and are thus attempting to game the system by insisting that the article must conform to your own personal views which rather clearly deviate from the consensus views of the other editors who have been involved to date. John Carter (talk) 22:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I've started Talk:Historicity of Jesus/sources. My main search was just "historicity of Jesus," followed by "historical Jesus," in both cases only grabbing sources that a quick glance left me with the impression that the work would try to make an argument regarding historicity (not merely historical context) even if that particular word was not used.

@Evensteven:, if we are to stick to sources that are religious but not academic, then this article needs to be renamed "theology of Jesus." This article, due to its title, should stick to sources that are concerned with the historicity of Jesus, which is an academic pursuit that may be sought by religious and irreligious alike. There are works that are both religious and academic, which, under the plan I gave, would not necessarily be excluded. Religiosity and scholasticism are perpendicular measures, not opposing forces. What would be excluded are purely theological works, which are more concerned with the meaning than the historicity. My proposal does not attempt to find "the truth," but merely give due representation to the various views in academia.

The problem is that everyone has been picking "a starting point" to focus on, instead of simply summarizing all reliable sources and giving them due weight. That's all we do, summarize sources with due weight.

As for claims of walls of text, are you innocent in that?

@Fearofreprisal:, books that discuss the historicity of Jesus among other topics still seem to be category 3. They discuss the historicity of Jesus, even if they discuss other topics.

I cannot imagine that we will need more than one category 1 source, only to define historicity in the intro, since additional sources would either be redundant or lead to WP:SYNTH. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't finish the list of articles from the encyclopedia today which basically means I won't be able to get back to it until next Thursday given my work schedule and the library's current hours. User:John Carter/Jesus contains all the articles and named subarticles I was able to go through. The book seems to be primarily about the "historical Jesus" and discussing matters which help place the historical Jesus in context all of which indicates that the source operates on the assumption that the book assumes the existence of a historical Jesus which it rather clearly seems to do. But there might be some use in having one of the articles by that name given the frequency with which the phrase is used. John Carter (talk) 23:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Ian.thomson: I agree such books are still category 3. I'm asking how to differentiate claims in these books that are historicity based, versus claims that are not. Fearofreprisal (talk) 00:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

You mean we should allow one set of opinions from one view and eliminate another set from another view, according to your own criteria. That is WP:THETRUTH, and WP:POINTY. You make a good case for that. Evensteven (talk) 00:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Though it's not clear what you're talking about, I'm pretty sure that's not what I meant. Fearofreprisal (talk) 01:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

You claim that books by Christian scholars are not "historicity based", whereas your list of books is. That is the truth as you see it. But the difference between the books is not based on historicity (or lack of it), it is based on your own criteria of what you believe in (or what you don't). Jesus' historicity is a central tenet of the Christian faith, and has been for centuries. The books' differences include only differences of starting assumptions (every one of the books has those), in what conclusions are acceptable or not, and in what techniques, attitudes, procedures, and information are useful in exploring the questions. Your books cannot disprove Jesus' historicity; there is only enough information available to call it into question (which they do). Books of Orthodox theology cannot prove Jesus' historicity (which they don't, and don't try to); there is only the information that is extant, and even if Christian books draw on some information which yours reject as unreliable, that information is still not enough for proof of the Christian view. But if Christian books draw conclusions or support views you regard as unreliable, that does not mean those views are pulled out of thin air. There are grave weaknesses in non-Christian books that dismiss what is known on the basis that other things are not known, and that expect documentation from an age when documents were rare and expensive, and will not seek out what it can find from sources it would prefer to ignore. Today, acceptance of personal attestation is the only way to prove that men went to the moon, and documents are one form of attestation. Somebody wrote them. And somebody always teaches and passes information to the next generation; they did in A.D. 1, and they do now, and no one can do without it. That means that, Christian or not, one always has to learn to sift, explore, and weigh the sources, scholarly ones as well as non-scholarly, and no one can produce a rock hard answer fit to survive testing. This is not physics, and even physics can only prove what is reproducible. Every human method has limitations. So this article has at least one major division of views (plus subdivisions) to sift and weigh and talk about in neutral language, based on sources from all views, supported by the methods of their own choosing. Present the criticisms of Christian methods if some scholars criticize them. Present the criticisms of non-Christian methods if some scholars criticize them. But present them. And build a neutral, balanced article, devoid of artificial eliminations based on your own assumptions and opinions. You are not allowed to limit and define according to your own taste, nor that of only a group of scholars. Describe their alternate views instead. Most of all, don't expect anything to be settled in anyone's favor. Evensteven (talk) 03:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:TLDR -- I stopped after the first sentence, which is a complete fabrication on your part. Fearofreprisal (talk) 05:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@Evensteven:I owe you an apology. It was not a fabrication on your part -- it was a misinterpretation. You must have misread my statement "I'm asking how to differentiate claims in these books that are historicity based, versus claims that are not."

It's not "these books" that are historicity based -- it's the "claims." (I actually shouldn't have used the term "historicity based." Rather, I should have said "historicity related.")

For an example, consider James Dunn's book, Jesus Remembered. He discusses historicity at length, but he never brings historicity into, for example, the discussion of the birth narrative in Matthew. Yet, he does say that the birth narrative is "developed tradition" (Jesus Remembered, p. 341), which is an indirect assertion of its non-historicity. I absolutely support including reference to Dunn's discussions of historicity in the article (and I've added even more coverage of it in the article, see e.g., Historicity of Jesus#cite_note-3), but what about his comments on Matthew's birth narrative? Look at Virgin_birth_of_Jesus#Historicity for context. Though not perfect, it's a rather good discussion of historicity, and I could certainly envision Dunn's comments on Matthew's birth narrative fitting nicely there. Yet, there are examples which are more challenging.

For example, Ehrman: Yes, he wrote a whole book on historicity of Jesus -- but he started the book with the statement "Of course Jesus existed. Everyone knows he existed. Don’t they?" While I'm supportive of including Ehrman's analysis of the historicity of biblical events in the article, and I'm in agreement with including his conclusions resulting from his analysis, I'm a lot less enthusiastic about his opening statement. It is phrased as a presupposition, not as an assertion of historicity. (Unlike Dunn, a Christian whose writing reeks of balance and integrity, Ehrman's writings on the historicity of Jesus are admittedly apologetic--presenting only the "for" side of the argument, and ridiculing the "con" side.)

Bottom line: I don't claim that "books by Christian scholars are not 'historicity based.'" I am not trying to exclude books based on the religion of their authors. I am not suggesting that any scholars now cited in the article be excluded. Fearofreprisal (talk) 08:13, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@Fearofreprisal:Accepted. What a relief! I am delighted that the cause was miscommunication rather than ill will! (I hate fighting those kinds of battles.) And I did indeed take your original words in a much different light than your corrected ones. I confess that I read over a large amount of text fairly quickly myself, and if in my haste I have misconstrued other material (as I may well have done) or misstated my intentions (always possible), then I must certainly apologize likewise for misleading you, and definitely for the harsh tone. I am indeed aggressive against POV pushing (which is what I thought I saw), but am always more than glad of the opportunity to return to constructive interaction. I am grateful for your discovery, and hope we may both put prior messages behind us. This latest from you is exactly the working approach I was seeking and trying to argue for, and what I expect of myself.

Even if I find some (specific) "scholarship" lacking (not painting a whole type of it), I too recognize that it exists and is reportable in balanced articles. While it can be more pleasant to read authors (like Dunn?) whose expressions are balanced, I don't object to apologetic writing either (like Ehrman?). There is also something to be said for stating the pro side of a case; it can clarify, and if one has already accepted a position's foundations from elsewhere, it can deepen understanding. I think ridicule as a technique often backfires on the author, who may be seen (rightly or not) as weak or shallow against opposition, but some opposition really deserves ridicule (like a denial that the year zero exists). So if Ehrman ridicules, we must understand that he sees his opposition in that light, and we (as readers) will then weigh the rightness of his opinion accordingly. Of course, as WP editors, we will recognize the nature of his case, and his ridicule, weigh its notability, and if needed, state the case in neutral terms. Balance is much more of a requirement in encyclopedia articles than it is in the sources it draws its material from. It's just that our job is rather easier when based on writing that uses an approach more like Dunn's.

But both approaches are capable of great integrity, yet specific use of the approaches may sometimes fall short of that goal. I do not know either Dunn or Ehrman enough to have any opinion about that in their cases. I do know that in dealing with matters that cross vast spans of history, and writings that were created along the way, we must also be aware of modern prejudices in favor of our current ways of approaching things. Every age has always loved its familiar approaches best, and has sometimes unduly elevated or disparaged that of other ages. We love our pseudo-scientific methods of analytical precision and minute examination far too much. It's not that they aren't useful tools; quite the contrary. But the medievals, for example, were much more focused on grasping the entirety of situations, "grokking" it (to use Heinlein's word), observing and describing more generally, and giving vivid impressions, often emotional and intuitive as well as cognitive. They weren't less intelligent or less motivated to make true (accurate) reports. They just used a different set of tools, to different purpose. Those tools provided more of some things and less of others. Medievals might look at a modern factual report as deficient in leaving out so many aspects of the human experience of things, and they'd be right, as far as that went. When I look at modern authors writing about a subject like the historicity of Jesus, I expect to find a scholarly awareness of differences like these, and if I don't, I consider such writing to fall several degrees short of its goals, much less its ability to be compelling. Evensteven (talk) 18:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

According to Ehrman, in the Christ Myth Theory camp there are just two or maybe three established scholars, in the camp "Jesus existed" there are thousands of established scholars, and there are some theologians who claim that historical investigation about Jesus is futile, but not because they would think that he did not exist (whether such truth is theological or historical). Ehrman did not make up these figures, he just reports them. So, obviously, he considers Christ Myth Theory as fringe. He cannot be blamed for that. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Not sure if you thought my comments were directed at Ehrman (or Dunn) or not; I was merely referring to them as examples of types of writers, as characterized by Fearofreprisal. Personally, I surely would agree that the Christ Myth Theory must be highly limited in time, space, and influence compared to "Jesus existed". I certainly do not intend to give argument in support for its notability, if that was in question. I do agree that all these historical investigations are futile, though I am firmly in the "Jesus existed" camp. Belief or faith in "Jesus existed", in my view, does not derive from historical proofs, and historical disproofs are not possible either. I think my opinion is entirely consonant with any Orthodox theology. As for the Bible, St. Paul said "If Christ be not raised from the dead, then our faith is in vain.", or close to that. And if he died, how did he manage to do so if he did not exist on earth? A question any Christian might raise. Evensteven (talk) 23:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Regards Christ Myth Theory: I don't see where it really fits in an article about the historicity of Jesus. Certainly, minority view points regarding specific issues of historicity belong in the article -- but the overall premise of "Christ Myth Theory" goes beyond mere non-historicity, to non-existence. While many Christian scholars are willing to accept the possibility of non-historicity, few are willing to go as far as accepting the possibility of non-existence. This is why a statement that Jesus existed is not the same thing as an a assertion of his historicity. And it's the reason started a talk page section, asking for reliable sources who equate the historicity of Jesus with the existence of Jesus -- though I was pretty certain none would be found. Fearofreprisal (talk) 00:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh. You understand now why I pay only minimal attention to such theories, hence why I was unaware of its claims to show "Jesus definitely does not exist". I do think that makes it more extreme, and very likely more fringe. But I think your original phrasing didn't make that point for you. It's akin to my comment in the section below about "lack of evidence is not itself evidence, not even evidence of a lack". Putting a negative on the front of a phrase does not always get you to its opposite, and putting negatives on the front of two phrases does not always produce a parallel relationship. I think more concrete ways of saying things can prove helpful. Abstractions can be so elusive of meaning. Evensteven (talk) 02:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

In two weeks I expect to perhaps start an RfC on this topic specifically inviting input from among others regular AfD editors about what they think the best statement of scope for this article is based on the evidence presented to date and if they think that a separate article whose scope is specifically limited to the definition of historicity that fear wishes to build an article around would be likely to remain a separate article based on the sources then available on that topic at the time of the RfC. I very much believe that their input would be very valuable in this matter.John Carter (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Need WP:RS citations that show "historicity of Jesus"= "existence of Jesus"

User:John Carter wrote "I think a reasonable case could be made that the phrase [Historicity of Jesus] is maybe? among the more commonly used phrases to describe the topic of the matter of the existence of Jesus and may perhaps be the most commonly used phrase to describe that subject." [8]

The only way to make this "reasonable case" is to find some verifiable citations from reliable sources that explicitly equate "historicity of Jesus" with "existence of Jesus." They should probably be peer reviewed or at least academic.

Absent such citation(s), all the statements regarding the "existence of Jesus" in the article need to be re-examined. Fearofreprisal (talk) 04:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

What complete and utter nonsense, word-twisting, and sophistry! Find in Saint Athanasius' "On the Incarnation" a distinction between the historicity of Jesus and His existence on earth as a human, physical and in every other way a human, born of a woman, who lived a life on earth that began with birth on a specific day and death on another specific day. There is none there, so it will be hard to find. The same is expressed in the Nicene Creed, prayed by Christians for at least 1500 years. The same is expressed throughout Orthodox theology, wherein neither Hegel nor others who question Jesus' historicity (=existence on earth) has had any influence whatsoever. If you think otherwise, find some. There is none, so it also will be hard to find. Modern treatments of the Christian view can be found in both of the most well-known books of Metropolitan Kallistos (Timothy) Ware: The Orthodox Church and The Orthodox Way, and are equally easy to find in the many books of Orthodox theology now available in English in bookstores and all over the Internet. And you want me (or somebody else) to do your work for you when the merest glance will provide a list a mile long?

But of course, you are looking to challenge the Christian view. Ok, go ahead. You just can't do it by saying the Christian view doesn't really exist, and doesn't really have sources. Of course, you might claim there are people who call themselves Christians and still don't hold with the view I described. Ok, you're probably right. Talk to them about what you both please and make what points you will, and if you win some points, perhaps that will please you too. It just won't have anything to do with the view of Jesus' historicity I have presented to you. And are you really trying to say that that view does not fall under the topic of this article? That view is huge, throughout history, and in the present. If this article doesn't deal with it, what article will?

Now that's something that can be considered here, but I would ask why it ought to be. After all, article titles are designed to allow the reader to get to his/her topic of interest in the easiest and most direct way possible. Rather than applying subtleties of dictionary definitions, we aim to use and follow common expressions and terminology. And the article content (topic) is defined by that common expression. What title would you propose for the topic you are targeting? It is arguably obscure and technical, so perhaps it requires justification as to notability or separability from this topic. Describe how this will benefit WP, please. Evensteven (talk) 04:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Fearofreprisal (talk) 07:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Yawn. My point exactly. Evensteven (talk) 07:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

It does seem clear from sources that at least some Bible scholars who hold the view "Jesus existed" don't do so on any sort of empirical basis, and are quite open about this. Samuel Byrskog, for instance, says that the most commonly understood meaning of "historicity" is "the verifiable past existence of certain phenomena", but he rejects this approach in favour of a definition about an examination of "historical perceptions of reality". He says: "The basis of our knowledge of the historical Jesus is therefore contextual ... What comes out at the end is a reconstruction of history, to be sure, but a reconstruction which is essentially an informed kind of reconfiguration, fictionalization, and narrativization of somebody we believe existed in the past."

According to James Dunn, "...the 'historical Jesus' is properly speaking a ninteenth- and twentieth-century construction using the data provided by the Synoptic tradition, not Jesus back then and not a figure in history." (Emphasis in the original).

William Hamilton says: "Jesus is inaccessible by historical means. All we can know (or need to know) is that he has come."

Our article is problematic because it attributes the views of Bible scholars more widely to "scholars of antiquity" and "classical historians" (based on extremely weak sourcing). But, moreover, it doesn't even seem clear that there is consensus that Jesus' existence is in principle provable, even within the narrower field.

Formerip (talk) 00:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Part of the perceived problem I regret to say may be in the eyes of the above beholder. For most of the history of that field most of what is called in some schools today "Ancient Near Eastern studies" is still called in other schools and has been called for most of its history "biblical studies" and by extension most of those involved historically in the field of ANE studies have been and still are in many areas called "biblical scholars." The use of the word "biblical" in fact does not even remotely generally indicate that the specific area of study involved has anything directly to do with the Bible itself.John Carter (talk) 21:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding my point, which doesn't really have to do with the structures of higher education institutions. The question of the existence or non-existence of Jesus is what that, in reasonably recent times, has only been substantively addressed by Bible scholars - that is, by people whose primary academic interests are connected to the study of the Bible as a text. Of the people who we might term "scholars of antiquity" or "classical historians", but who are not Bible scholars, AFAICT the number who have examined the question of Jesus' existence is zero. While it is perfectly probable that at least some of those do believe that Jesus existed, we have no way of actually knowing - my personal guess is that the majority would not consider it a question professionally relevant to them.

Our article, though, currently ascribes views held by Bible scholars to a wider academic community, and it does so on the basis of flimsy evidence. I would say this counts as distortion.

Moreover, it also seems that at least some Bible scholars take a position that Jesus existed only by adopting a slightly non-standard definition of "existed", and I would say our article is at fault for denying the reader that information. Formerip (talk) 23:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

FormerIP said "The question of the existence or non-existence of Jesus is what that, in reasonably recent times, has only been substantively addressed by Bible scholars - that is, by people whose primary academic interests are connected to the study of the Bible as a text." I have seen nothing from him or anyone else to provide any evidence for this assertion which leads me to suggest that your main point is at least so far as I can see unsubstantiated OR. We do not make a habit of making significant changes to articles on such flimsy bases. To suggest that the article is based on such views without providing any substantive sources to support them and to make changes to it on that basis would qualify in my eyes as significantly problematic. I am not myself an expert in the field but I would welcome anyone checking with Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities or similar editors who would know more on the subject to see if FormerIP's points would be counted as relevant by those knowedgable in the field.John Carter (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The article should present the information that is notable enough for inclusion, whatever the viewpoint. Views are certainly in play here, and while they need to be presented neutrally, they do need to be presented. How you evaluate a view does not enter into consideration.

As for "flimsy evidence", lack of evidence is not itself evidence, not even evidence of a lack. The evidence we have is what we have. Everyone must do with it what he/she can. I know of no Christian who has come to a belief in Jesus' existence on the basis of your evidence. Real belief does not consist of superficial statements or the result of logical sequences, not even for scientists. Real belief requires probing and hard work, and those who have not done that do not have it. Belief in God or Jesus comes by means of relationship, and is non-transferable. It would be pathetic to believe by means of independent evidence, which, perhaps, is why God has seen fit to make that impossible. I have made the point about impossiblity multiple times by now, and many, both with Christian views and without them, believe in that impossibility. Perhaps that tends to create the process by which historicity theories become fringe? Evensteven (talk) 00:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I've said before, this is not the place for personal opinions, apologetics, or polemics. As soon as the word "belief" shows up in a conversation here, it's a pretty good sign that the conversation has nothing to do with the article.Fearofreprisal (talk) 00:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I have to agree some of my comment wasn't about the article. It was about showing where I am coming from, to increase understanding of my positions and attitudes, which helps people to avoid difficulties in communications. So what was not about the article, was still in support of the editing. I have seen this to be useful elsewhere on WP, and elsewhere all over. And the opposing views here have not been without their own opinions, apologetics, and polemics. Sometimes one can learn to see one's own better after being exposed to someone else's. We all have to do what is necessary to get the work of editing done (by consensus), and that means dealing with other people, and often, ones who don't agree. It's not a neatly defined path. Evensteven (talk) 00:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying to focus on issues that are holding back the article (such as the conflation of existence with historicity), but sometimes the talk page turns into a big wall of text. (And I'm certainly guilty of creating a lot of it.) Fearofreprisal (talk) 01:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Granted, and I tend to the same, sorry to say. So, absolute avoidance being undesirable, may all our walls be built to good purpose, but on the appropriate scale! :) Evensteven (talk) 01:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Evensteven, you are correct that "lack of evidence is not itself evidence, not even evidence of a lack". But the problem is that our article currently presents information as factual for which evidence is lacking. It also lacks information which appears highly relevant and for which evidence exists. In other words, the article seems extremely one-sided at present. Formerip (talk) 01:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

In principle, that certainly sounds reasonable. So long as everyone is agreed as to the facts, evidence, and evaluation of presentation, it should be a breeze. Evensteven (talk) 01:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

The first sentence of the lead reads: "The historicity of Jesus concerns the analysis of historical evidence to determine whether Jesus of Nazareth existed as a historical figure, and whether any of the major milestones in his life as portrayed in the gospels can be confirmed as historical events." This might be better phrased as: "The historicity of Jesus is the question of whether Jesus of Nazareth existed (take out as a historical figure' - what else would he exist as?), and whether or to what extent the New testament writings (take out "any of the major milestones in his life as portrayed in the gospels" - it's not just milestones that are at issue but teachings, and it's not just the gospels) can be confirmed as historical events." Don't you guys have anything better to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.23.133.25 (talk) 06:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

We seem to be making progress, albeit slowly. Ignoring all the froth and sticking to the article, I think a big issue still to be resolved is the so-called “conflation of existence with historicity”. To me it’s clear that if Jesus did not exist then nothing about him was historical, but if Jesus did exist in some form that does not mean the New Testament stories are all reliable – some may be reliable, some clearly are not, and nobody can say into which category much of the stuff belongs. Please could it be clarified on the talk page why the “conflation” is seen to be such a big deal? If we can sort that out, maybe the rest of the issues might flow a bit more smoothly? Wdford (talk) 09:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

It all comes down to what can be supported by citations to reliable sources. But, let me posit two ideas, for talk page discussion:

• “The dictionary definition of 'historicity' is 'historical quality or authenticity based on fact.' Historicity is a quality of a discourse perhaps, or even of an opinion. The most general concept would be something like this: the historicity of a claim about the past is its factual status."[9](I'm not arguing that this is an ideal definition, but it is a starting point.) So, you might consider the "historicity of Jesus" to be the historical quality or authenticity of claims about Jesus.
• Scholars studying biblical events understand historicity largely in the context of historical criticism. (You can read a short essay on historical criticism here: [10])

Given these two ideas, I think it's pretty clear that historicity is not the same thing as existence. Fearofreprisal (talk) 12:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not clear to me at all that there is a difference between the two. What in a nutshell is the difference between existence and historicity? Martijn Meijering (talk) 12:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

“Conflation of existence with historicity” is the kind of prose that makes eyes glaze over. What your readers want to know is whether Jesus existed at all (answer: most scholars say yes), and if so, how reliable is the NT picture of him (answer: nobody really knows). WHich is whjat you mean, but in reader-friendly language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.23.133.25 (talk) 01:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Mmeijeri: This is the essential problem: it's one thing to just assume that historicity and existence are the same thing, but it's another thing to actually provide citations to support that notion.

I can certainly provide citations showing that historicity and existence are related concepts -- but I can't find any that show they're the same thing.

As for the IP editor's comment: If readers want to know whether Jesus existed at all, they should go to the Existence of Jesus article. You might be familiar with that article -- it's the one that doesn't exist on Wikipedia. Fearofreprisal (talk) 14:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Readers of Wikipedia who don't like what they read are always free to start their own article, and frequently do.

The paragraph that Fearofreprisal inserted into the lead section (without consensus) states that "Historicity is the historical actuality of persons and events". The dictionary defines "actuality" as "The state of EXISTING in reality".[11] In order to avoid extensive philosophical debates and stick to plain understandable English, we have therefore used the term "existence" instead of "actuality". Please clarify – what exactly is your problem with this? Wdford (talk) 16:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Check out WP:EDITCONSENSUS, and you'll see that I was fully correct in adding that paragraph to the lead section. But, I'm not suggesting it's perfect -- I think it does need fine tuning.

The only problem I have with what you're saying is that it's WP:SYNTHESIS. "Existence" is different from "existence in reality" (and, for that matter, "historical existence,") so you're going to end up in a philosophical rabbithole anyway. Can you provide any citations to reliable sources that might be helpful?

Fearofreprisal (talk) 19:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I already gave my source - the Oxford Dictionary is a reliable source for the meanings of words in the English language. I see that you now claim that "Existence" is different from "existence in reality" or "historical existence". Please can you provide a reliable source that substantiates this claim? Wdford (talk) 20:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems the two are clearly synonymous in this context. It might be that it only seems this way, and that various subtleties mean they actually aren't, but that's an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. I think it is time to stop playing word games. Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Given that a definition of "historicity" appears problematic, why is there a need for the article to provide one? If readers don't know what it means, they can look it up. But for us to come up with our own definition, particularly if it is contentious, seems like original research, even if our definition ends up being really good. If there is only one really clear and obvious way of defining it, then we don't need to. If there is more than one way, then it is hard for us to know that our definition matches the defintion assumed by the sources, so the whole exercise could end up being misleading.

I think the article needs a more balanced presentation, but I don't see how going off on tangents about defining terms helps. Formerip (talk) 22:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Wdford - I've got no problem with the Oxford dictionary (Though it's not the OED.) Its definition of Historicity is actually incorporated into the second paragraph of the article.

When you take a definition that says "The state of EXISTING in reality", and say "that's just 'existence'", that's probably asking for trouble. Things can "exist" in many ways -- in mythology, dreams, legend, fantasy, and even history. (Certainly I have citations that show the above. Do you really need them?)

Meijering - I'm not the one who's saying that two words mean the same thing. The one making the claim (in the article) has the WP:BURDEN on that.

If the two words are seemingly synonymous simply based on context and ordinary usage, then the burden is on those claiming they are not the same. You cannot even identify what the alleged difference in meaning is. Martijn Meijering (talk) 00:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

FormerIP - There are already two articles that discuss historicity, in a general sense: Historicity, and Historicity (philosophy). The definition of the term isn't problematic -- but it is a college level term. This article doesn't need to come up with its own definition. It should use reliable sources for that. So far, no reliable sources have been found that say "historicity" is the same thing as "existence." Fearofreprisal (talk) 23:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

We may be talking at cross-purposes, but if there are not reliable sources for it, why not just leave it out of the article? Formerip (talk) 00:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with leaving things out for which there are no reliable sources. Fearofreprisal (talk) 01:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

We are obviously NOT talking about existence in dreams etc here - the opening sentence which defines the article very clearly spells out that the focus is "whether Jesus of Nazareth existed as a historical figure, and whether any of the major milestones in his life as portrayed in the gospels can be confirmed as historical events." Wdford (talk) 08:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

May I take us all back a half-step and ask what seems a basic question: If the title of the article is not clear and obvious to readers — whether it is vague, ambiguous, undefined, obscure, contentious, or unclear for any other reason — then why are we using it? Is there good reason to expect that readers of Wikipedia will be searching for that specific phrase?  Unician ∇  10:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

That's an excellent question. The answer is that the title is NOT vague, ambiguous, undefined, obscure, contentious, or unclear for any other reason. One editor recently appeared and started a fuss, but until then nobody else seemed to have a problem with it. That said, I have no problem in renaming the article if anybody has a better suggestion? Perhaps Existence of Jesus or Historical reliability of the New Testament stories? Maybe an even better option would be for the article to be split and merged into Historical Jesus and Historical reliability of the Gospels - the overlaps are substantial, and the rationale for retaining two separate articles is unclear to me? Wdford (talk) 12:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I am sending today a transcribed copy of the section from the Anchor Bible Dictionary article on Jesus containing the word "historicity" in the section title to a few of the editors here today. I think I mentioned that before and asked for email addresses but didn't get anyway so I'll send it out "cold". I have also started a page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Jesus work group/Encyclopedic articles containing the list of subarticles of the Jesus ABD article as an indicator of what relevant topics can be found discussed elsewhere. I expect to add material from similar reference books on the topic as I finish them. I think the name here is used as per WP:COMMONNAME and that probably any article title less than a full sentence long would encounter such problems. John Carter (talk) 14:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems very clear that the article needs to be clarified what the point of the article is or else there will forever be loops of arguments. On the Historical Jesus page, it says "For information about the historical existence of Jesus, see Historicity of Jesus." It seems like this could be named "Historical existence of Jesus" and that would be more precise. I am not sure why people would want to understand or explore specifically historicity as something divorced from that discussion. If they want to know about the philosophical sense, as explained in the Wiki article here and elsewhere, it is how it has evolved historically over time. It doesn't seem that that is the thrust of this article and might better be 'Understanding of Jesus throughout History". Prasangika37 (talk) 02:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The point of the article is clarified precisely in the opening sentence, namely that the article "concerns the analysis of historical evidence to determine whether Jesus of Nazareth existed as a historical figure, and whether any of the major milestones in his life as portrayed in the gospels can be confirmed as historical events." How much more clear could it be made? Wdford (talk) 10:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's very clear. And if that is the article that this community wants to write, maintain, and contribute, I don't have an issue with that. It's one way of looking at it, a notable and valid subject, and there's no reason that one way can't be addressed in an article and appropriate information provided. It is not, however, the only way to interpret the title. If there is sufficient interest, there is room to create another article using a different approach. As currently expressed here, this is not the article I would have expected to see when coming to read it, nor the one I had potential interest in when I came to the talk page, and I find this angle uninteresting. That too is ok. Sometimes when there is a division of views that can give rise to asperity, it is more useful to present the views separately, because hopping back and forth between incompatibilities can also make for a lack of clarity. Perhaps this is an occasion to handle the views in this fashion. Evensteven (talk) 16:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Accepted. As a matter of interest, considering the dictionary definition of "historicity", which article/topic were you expecting to find based on this title? Wdford (talk) 18:02, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

And by what WP policy do you offer ridicule? Evensteven (talk) 19:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not offering ridicule, I am asking a relevant question. As one of the editors who is trying to resolve this issue of the article name, I am interested to know what other interpretations of the article name might there be? It seems plain enough to me, but if it is indeed ambiguous, then corrective action is obviously required. AGF. Wdford (talk) 20:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh really? And where did you get the idea that I have been arguing about the dictionary definition? AGF yourself. Evensteven (talk) 18:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

You haven't answered the question - which article/topic were you expecting to find when you clicked on this article originally? Wdford (talk) 23:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I see ridicule so much as a request for clarification. Personally I agree that there are probably variations on the title/scope matter other than the one recently put forward here and think it is a reasonable request which could be used in a hatnote or similar to provide links to other articles. Also I have to assume other editors might conceivably be interested in that other topic if they knew more clearly what it is. John Carter (talk) 19:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

"Historical Existence of Jesus" seems like a far more accurate and useful name given the fact that Historicity is apparently confusing and has a separate philosophical definition as I mentioned earlier. E.g. historicity in philosophy refers to the development of a concept through history. Its not a good source but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_(philosophy) gives a brief insight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prasangika37 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

OK - shall we propose that the article be renamed "Historical Existence of Jesus"? I would however like to include not just the existence of the man, but also which of his actions/events are considered to be historical - otherwise a straight yes-he-existed article ends up looking like an endorsement of the gospel stories. Any comments please? Wdford (talk)

Still working on Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Jesus work group/Encyclopedic articles but I would suggest that whatever the most commonly appearing article section scope in reference sources might be the best scope to use here.John Carter (talk) 21:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I googled "Historicity of Jesus" and I got 407,000 hits, I then googled "Historical Existence of Jesus" and I got 16,900,000 hits. Mmmmmmm…… Wdford (talk) 12:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Historicity of the gospels is only a redirect right now too. I could see moving the page to Historical existence of Jesus or something similar for clarity's sake. John Carter (talk) 16:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Wdford suggested the title “Existence of Jesus”; Prasangika37 suggested “Historical existence of Jesus”. Do editors generally prefer the second proposal as a clarification of the first? And what edge cases would be newly-included or excluded from the article by such a change?  Unician ∇  23:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Cleaning up the lead

Over the last month or so the lead section has become progressively cluttered up with a lot of detail that belongs in the body of the article. The lead section is supposed to summarize the content of the article, not duplicate it. I therefore propose to remove all excess detail from the lead section, and leave the lead section as a summary of the main points of content only. Wdford (talk) 12:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Good idea. I look forward to your changes. CorinneSD (talk) 16:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I sent to Wdford a copy of the Anchor Bible Dictionary subarticle on the historicity of Jesus. It is old but it still should be of some use.John Carter (talk) 18:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Please edit the lead. The lead is one of the longest I've seen, and its supposed to be a max of 4 paragraphs. Its pretty sprawling and I assume its not fitting anyone's needs. Particularly all the clarification over what Historicity of Jesus is and isn't seems like it could be summed up in a sentence or two and maybe mostly moved to the main body. The name 'Historical Existence of Jesus' name would also seem to remove a lot of the point anyway. It may prove useful to offer a lead up here if people are deeply passionate about the things they included in the lead, or maybe WP:BRD will bring about a nice synthesis. Prasangika37 (talk) 02:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Moving Forward Again

FormerIP has recently raised the concern that the article “currently ascribes views held by Bible scholars to a wider academic community, and it does so on the basis of flimsy evidence.” FormerIP also stated that the article “currently presents information as factual for which evidence is lacking. It also lacks information which appears highly relevant and for which evidence exists.” These concerns have been raised before, but before we got around to addressing them we got side-tracked.

Now the lead itself is becoming cluttered up with extensive quotes in all directions, which makes the lead huge and unwieldy. This will also need to be cleared up shortly.

As a start-point I have tried to simplify and focus things by grouping the summary of the actual evidence into its own dedicated section, by grouping the discussion about “what can be known or deduced” into a second section, and by temporarily removing any quotes which appear to be an unhelpful duplication, just to clear the deck. It needs to be cleaned up further, and some gaps filled in, but before we progress on which opinions to include or exclude, perhaps FormerIP can clarify their concerns and suggest possible solutions? Wdford (talk) 08:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Count me out. I'm giving up. That doesn't mean I don't have an opinion. I just see this now as a pointless area for discussion. Too many unchangeable positions and distractions. HiLo48 (talk) 09:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems then that there are no serious objections to the sources being quoted here - is that correct?

Can we then move on to cleaning up the lead section, which has been progressively cluttered up with lengthy quotes and other details which should be in the body of the article only? Wdford (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

My objection to the way the Ehrman source is being used it is that it is a weak source for an extraordinary claim. No academics other than Bible scholars have, in recent history, published anything giving serious consideration to the question of whether Jesus existed. So any claim about what they believe on that question is extraordinary. The source used is a polemical book about why it is ever so wrong to question whether Jesus existed, popular history rather than strictly academic. This makes it a weak source, and so inappropriate. The solution I would suggest is not to reproduce polemic in Wikipedia's voice. I would further suggest that the article should be clearer that the question of Jesus' existence is one generally addressed only by Bible scholars and not by the wider academic community. Formerip (talk) 23:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Protection

I have protected the article for 24 hours upon observing rather a lot of back-and-forth that risks running foul of our policies. I would urge the participants to please collaborate with a cool and rational attitude. I trust that you can responsibly deal with a rather shorter protection period than has historically been enacted on this article, and work collaboratively towards resolving the dispute. I will not hesitate to protect for a longer period if instability resumes. In connection with such protection, it is traditional to also recommend an appraisal of m:The Wrong Version. Regards, Samsara (FA • FP) 00:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

@Samsara, the status of the article page now is essentially the pre-editwar version, substantially representing the prior consensus. Evensteven (talk) 01:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

The content is now quite clean and mostly coherent, and the lead is now a clear summary of the content. All that remains to deal with is the neutrality tag. Is there any objection to removing the tag now? If yes, please state the concern, so that we can address it directly? Wdford (talk) 12:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The page was protected due to edit wars until last night. I'd appreciate if you can tread lightly for now. We don't want to fan the flames, please. Samsara (FA • FP) 12:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

My main complaints are that the page doesn't properly distinguish between biblical scholars (not the same as theologians) and historians, doesn't state that this subject, though a historical one, is rarely studied by historians and that its literature is written mostly by biblical scholars. It fails to mention the severe criticism of the field's methodological soundness and lack of impartiality that has been made both inside and outside the field, including by at least one historian (Akenson) who has published on the matter. Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The difficulty here is that the distinction you are drawing is not as clear as it seems. Not all 'biblical scholars' take a historical view (some are only interested in theological interpretation) but since the 19th Century it has been normal to adopt a historical-critical approach that draws on the methods of secular history. You could argue that this still doesn't make them historians. It's a fair criticism to make, although (a) I'm not sure it's been made [can you point me in the direction of the Akenson quote you mention?], and (b) I don't honestly think even secular historians would give much credence to the non-historicity thesis. If there is a well-founded critique of the approach of biblical scholars by, say, classical historians, that would be worth featuring. --Rbreen (talk) 14:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

For a), the sources mentioned in Historical_Jesus#Criticism_of_historical_Jesus_research are a good start. Note that the criticism comes from both inside and outside the field of HJ research. I like the comment made in the lede of Biblical studies: "Biblical scholars do not necessarily have a faith commitment to the texts they study, but many do." For b), this is true, we have a newspaper interview in which prominent historians were explicitly asked whether there was a controversy about the historicity of Jesus among historians and they emphatically denied it. This should be mentioned and distinguished from the consensus opinion among biblical scholars, because it's about a different group of scholars. It should also be mentioned that very few historians have published about this and presumably very few have even examined the arguments of mythicists. Martijn Meijering (talk) 14:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Makes sense. Could you perhaps draft up a paragraph for a proposed new section of the article, with the references you suggest, entitled "Criticisms of methodologies" or something appropriate? Let's maybe debate it here before it is added to the article. Wdford (talk) 14:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I object to removing the neutrality tag. Fearofreprisal (talk) 17:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

For now, I'd second Samsara on that also. Evensteven (talk) 20:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I also think Wdford's suggestion for a proposed section makes sense. Evensteven (talk) 20:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

@Mmeijeri:: The section you linked to already looks long enough for a separate article. Has anyone ever considered spinning it out and expanding it to include differences found between the views of different faith traditions and denominations? John Carter (talk) 21:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding methodological issues:

"The conclusion seems unavoidable that, in historical Jesus research, adequate attention had not been given to epistemic (methodological) issues, In the social scientific approach one does find efforts to enunciate aspects such as presuppositions, theories, models and methods."

— Historicity and theology, and the quest for historical Jesus, P.A. Geyser

See also: Hall, J. (2007). History, methodologies, and the study of religion. In J. Beckford, & N. Demerath (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of the sociology of religion. (pp. 167-189). London: SAGE Publications Ltd. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781848607965.n9

Fearofreprisal (talk) 22:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia policy.

Template:Who

I've made an edit with Who tags at appropriate places. This tag is for placement after attributions to vague "authorities" such as "serious scholars", "historians say", "some researchers", "many scientists", and the like. No more saying "most scholars of antiquity". That is against the rules, and it's on all the Jesus pages, put there by the Wikipedia apologetics team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.107.217 (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

So, what do you expect, a list of 10 000 Antiquity scholars who subscribe to the historicity of Jesus? Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Ehrman said he knows thousands of scholars who believe that Jesus really existed, so we cannot name every scholar part of this majority. Quotation marks could be used for "vast majority" or "virtually any scholar of Antiquity", in order to make clear it is information being quoted from reliable sources, instead of claims made in Wikipedia's voice. There is a ban on Wikipedia editors employing weasel words, the reliable sources themselves don't abide by our ban. And these may still be cited when they make clear that they express a consensus view, since there is a limited number of ways of conveying such information and very long lists of names of scholars supporting a position aren't generally part of such ways. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

In his claims about thousands of scholars, Ehrman does not distinguish between religious belief and historicity. If you can find a citation where he talks about thousands of scholars who accept the historicity of Jesus, that would be relevant. But no such citation exists. Ehrman even dodges the question of historicity as it relates to his own opinion. Fearofreprisal (talk) 07:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Is it your contention that if someone has a religious belief, that it disqualifies them as a scholar? Evensteven (talk) 13:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

These who tags are absurd. Virtually all of the sentences so tagged have footnotes to sources. john k (talk) 13:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Tags can be much overdone. So can weasel words. I think we should be diligent in checking sources per Tgeorgescu's comment to be sure that "vague attribution" words do not have their source in editing. And even with source backing, I think it makes for a stronger article to depend less on such characterizations and focus more on the core of the research. If there is scholarly disagreement or controversy, it is often most useful just to say that much and only that much, and forget about weighing the balance in fine detail. The point to do that is in distinguishing between notable and fringe. More tends to make an article just look like a pointy WP battleground where multiple axes are being ground. Evensteven (talk) 13:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Please don't go down this path again, Evensteven. People that consider Jesus of Nazareth to be divine can still be scholars, but they are also biased. The two things are not mutually exclusive. Material from biased sources need not be excluded, but it does need to be clearly labeled and segregated.—Kww(talk) 14:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

And people that consider Jesus of Nazareth not to be divine are also biased. There really is no safe haven from viewpoint. We need to treat both sides with the same kinds of considerations. Clear labeling is fine, a part of dealing with the matter according to NPOV. Segregated can work too, if it helps to distinguish the viewpoints from each other. Evensteven (talk) 15:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree, but how are we going to identify which scholar falls into which camp, before we can begin to segregate them? Wdford (talk) 15:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Considering someone to not be divine is no particular obstacle to believing in his existence. I don't think that anyone has ever been divine, is now divine, nor ever will be divine, but I certainly believe that some people have existed, exist now, and will exist in the future. There would be a question of bias when it came to acceptance of miraculous events, but no particular bias when it comes to the question of simple existence.—Kww(talk) 16:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

In response to Wdford's reasonable question regarding how we tell which individuals on all sides may be driven by bias of some sort, the answer is, as I think he knows and is implying in the question, we can't do so ourselves. All we really can do is repeat wht others have said before. The most recent substantive overview of this topic in an academic source that I have found to date is the ABD subarticle I sent to him and some others and am willing to forward to anyone who gives me an address to sent it to. I am still looking for more recent sources, and will note here any I find as I find them. John Carter (talk) 16:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Editors are always expected to evaluate sources for bias. Every editor. Every source. Every topic.—Kww(talk) 19:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

And they are also expected to make a reasonable effort to take into account their own biases and to not attempt to right great wrongs according to their own biases. And I thought reasonable "evaluation" generally came after looking at it, rather than by making possibly peremptory judgmentson them? John Carter (talk) 19:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I second John Carter here. And in response to Kww, while what you say about predisposition to bias about existence is not fully inherent in disbelief in divinity, the distinction is somewhat theoretical in practice. The bias exists in many who reject divinity, Christianity, any number of other things perhaps. Also, there are different biases; existence and historicity are only two closely-related ones. While those are our current focus, others can have a bearing on them. Disbelief in Christianity is just as much a fully inherent bias as belief, and both have a bearing on [dis]belief in Jesus' historicity. So, Kww, I support your call for examination of every editor, every source, every topic, and add "every bias". I have not hidden my biases, and would encourage other editors here to do the same as regards the article topic. From time to time this cooperation has been asked for (not just by me), and has failed to be given in some cases. The community must weigh the needs for such examination and disclosure as regards both discussion and editing. Finally, to Wdford, we may be able to separate sources and we may not, via disclosure. The segregation approach will not work well without it, however, so perhaps we should consider that as we consider that approach itself. We must work with what we have, not what we want. Evensteven (talk) 21:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm certainly not trying to right great wrongs. I've just noted, time after time, that this article presents the opinions of a group of primarily Christian and Muslim scholars and takes those opinions as if they represent historians as a whole. Bear in mind that Christians are a minority group, and that Christians and Muslims (grouped together as the primary groups that believe in the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth) total only 55% of the world's population: scarcely more than half.

The simple lack of Buddhist, Hindu, and atheist historians that support these Christian and Muslim scholars is, in itself, evidence of the bias problem. If this were a topic that was actually well supported by historical evidence, one would expect that the proportion of historians supporting the historical existence of Jesus would roughly mimic the proportions of different religious beliefs among historians as a whole (which would, in turn, mimic the world population). Instead of that expected 55:45 ratio, we find 100:0. That's an overwhelming disparity. What's the alternate explanation to source bias? Why aren't we finding sources from non-Christian, non-Muslim sources that support Jesus of Nazareth's existence?—Kww(talk) 21:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe WP:BURDEN applies here. Feel free to produce any such sources as you can find, excluding of course converts from Christianity and Islam whose own biases are open to serious question, as well as any committed Buddhists or Hindus who are by their faiths probably opposed to a religion whose tenets are at best very hard to reconcile with Christianity broadly construed, and I suppose some Jews biased against Christianity on the grounds of Christian antisemitism would have to be excluded as well. But if you can provide such sources that could reasonably meet WEIGHT criteria I'm sure we'd all like to see them. :) John Carter (talk) 22:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

[edit conflict]: Kww, bear in mind that atheists are a far smaller minority than Christians alone, much less the group who profess a major religious faith of some kind. And lack of evidence is not evidence. Lack of these other religious historians' support is not support of non-existence. And it is not lacking for any given reason. It is simply lack. Whatever your "expected ratios", I believe it was a particularly acute critic of Christianity who was also caustically disparaging about statistics: you have heard what Mark Twain had to say - "damned lies"? Your application of them here is far more ill-constructed than most that were floated even in his time, rife with assumption and unwarranted conclusions. Speaks of a bias problem to me. Of course, John Carter offers the suitable WP recourse. Evensteven (talk) 22:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

It would be easier to accept your protestations if you could actually point at even a handful of historians from different religious backgrounds that accept the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth. If there isn't source bias at play, both of you should be able to quickly produce a meaningful list of Buddhist and Hindu historians that align with the Christian historians being referenced here (and yes, Buddhists and Hindus are large groups, with numbers nearly equal to Christians and Muslims worldwide). Can you show me that handful? A few? Maybe two? I will stand by that 55:45 worldwide ratio as well. What reason would there be for the religious distribution of historians being substantially different from the religious distribution of the general population?—Kww(talk) 22:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Are we to take it from the above basically WP:IDHT comment above that you can not or will not produce any sources and are basically just being tendentious and/or disruptive? Please do not engage in the obvious fallacy of saying others have to do something to disprove an allegation you have yet to provide any evidence to support. You should know better by now. John Carter (talk) 23:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

John, I've been pleading with you to listen for a long time. I've heard what you are saying, but you are not engaging in return. You are asking me to prove a negative, which is impossible. I have searched. I cannot find any Hindu or Buddhist historians that support the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth. I therefore submit that there either aren't any or that they are extremely rare. What you need to do to counter my argument is produce a group of Hindu and Buddhist historians that do support the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. Not his divinity, his simple existence. There isn't a problem doing that with Muhammad, Joseph Smith, or Haile Selassie, to name a few other figures believed to be divine. Jesus of Nazareth appears to be an exception. Can you either demonstrate that he isn't an exception or provide any explanation for the exception other than source bias?—Kww(talk) 23:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

No, Kww, John needn't do that. Your argument is fallacious, as are your stat conclusions. It is you who need to supply your non-Christian (non-Muslim?) sources who do not support Jesus' historicity and get on with editing. There are two biases here, and about that you are being WP:IDHT. But there are ways to make contributions nevertheless. Evensteven (talk) 23:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

No, my logic is not flawed. You are asking that I provide sources of Hindus and Buddhists actively refuting the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. I'm not making that argument. I'm saying that the only historians making statements in support of his existence are Christian and Muslim. You are conflating a bias against his divinity with a bias against his existence and requiring active refutation as opposed to non-support. You accuse me of logic errors without demonstrating what they are and misread my arguments. What precisely is my statistical error? That only 55% of the world is Christian or Muslim? Or that we should expect the distribution of religions among historians to roughly mimic the distribution among the world's population? What force would you expect that drives the religious distribution among historians to be different than the world's population?—Kww(talk) 23:51, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, your logic is flawed. Your error is not in your raw data, it is in your conclusions based on the data. They are not statistical data collected and developed with the idea of supporting your thesis and they do not support that thesis. There are rules and processes that govern statistics in order to eliminate bias and improper conclusions, but you have gone looking for data to support conclusions already drawn - specifically that there is only one bias and that it is Christian/Muslim. Your expectation as to distributions is not validly drawn, not validly tested, and unsusceptible to your unscientific pseudo-analytic process. Non sequitur: it does not follow. Quod non est demonstrandum. It is not necessary to take the approach you are suggesting, and not necessary for John to find that type of source. And if they cannot be found, so be it. That does not put us in any bind here. I am saying that you can still present whatever sources you have to support your point of view, Hindu, Buddhist, atheist, or anything else. But those sources are also biased. As with Christian sources, they can be used and weighed accordingly. And that is what I am asking you to do, assuming that it is your inclination. Otherwise, WP:IDHT. Evensteven (talk) 01:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Evensteven -- The bias issue has been talked about over and over on this talk page. If you want to find the community consensus, just look the archives. My opinion is that bias isn't an issue: I'm more than happy with any scholarly viewpoint on historicity. I've even found that Christian scholars, when they specifically address historicity (versus belief), are forthright regarding the problems of historical evidence. But that's the catch: Too many WP editors want to include statements of belief in this article, rather than statements regarding historicity. Fearofreprisal (talk) 02:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC) Edited 05:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I am finding, with longer involvement at this page, that there seem to be many editors here for which bias is not an issue, for they do seem to have discovered that there are indeed WP mechanisms for dealing with bias which still permit effective and cooperative editing. Such was not the first impression, as I am sure one can understand. And I have already seen far too many places on WP where editors wish to place statements of their own belief, in other words, POV pushing. Bias is everywhere in the world, and one form we encounter on WP comes from editors who insist that their own POV is not biased, and push on that basis. When it comes to productive editing, and to measuring WP:RS, scholarly viewpoints are not the only ones that are valid to consider. But that is because (first) the unscholarly can still sometimes pursue a scholarly attitude with regards to close observation, articulate reporting, and a willingness to authenticate both strengths and weaknesses of process, insights, and materials, plus openness about their own work. The attitude can place more stress on how conclusions are drawn than on what the conclusions themselves are. It is a process designed to enhance a revelation of idea, in order to promote understanding. That's a principle of real scholarship. Too often scholars themselves fail to do this, while amateurs can succeed brilliantly at it. And of course, they can be Christian, or Muslim, or Jewish, or atheist, or any of an array of beliefs: both the successful and the not so successful. And so it is with WP editors too.

I will give you another of my biases. Whenever someone tells me that there is only one way to do something, or one process to reach an end, or one methodology to follow, or some restriction on what may be considered, what I see is a failure to seek and to explore, and ultimately an artificial hindrance to understanding. WP editing as a job requires understanding, and all the tools that can be brought to bear in order to achieve it. Understanding is not the same thing as being convinced, but it is certainly the starting point for resolving disputes. Each editor has not only the responsibility to pursue it, but is able to contribute according to the ability to achieve it. It's a skill. I recognize the misalignments that exist. But it's not a catch, except insofar as "this is what you get". Really, WP is the real world too, and we're all people with all that implies. We'll always have to deal with that. So, let's do our best. Evensteven (talk) 04:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Asking me to prove a negative while accusing me of IDHT and bad logic is laughable. The problem is that sources outside of the Christian and Muslim communities are not publishing material in favor of Jesus of Nazareth's historicity. I can't produce those sources that aren't talking about it, much the same as I cannot demonstrate that there are not sources describing Jesus as a lizard by providing a source. If you want to deny that the difference between 55% and 100% is a sign of a biased sample, I would suggest that the person that needs a statistics refresher course isn't me.—Kww(talk) 04:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Any chance of cutting back on the wall of text, and focusing on improving the article? Fearofreprisal (talk) 05:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd love to improve the article. First step is to qualify all references to "most scholars" and to generally qualify the support to indicate that it is predominantly Christian, with a striking absence of outside support. So long as we have editors that insist that I prove a negative before doing so, I'm at a loss as to how.—Kww(talk) 05:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, then, please do not misstate what I have said, and please do not do it repeatedly. I have made it quite clear that I am not asking you to prove anything, most especially not a negative. "Present whatever sources you have to support your point of view" is what I said. If your point of view requires the proving of a negative, and you can't do so, I don't know what we can do to accommodate your point of view here. But what I had in mind is presenting sources that contradict the Christian and Muslim viewpoint. Is that also impossible? I wouldn't think so. As for statistics, sorry, but I have a degree in math and a year's study specifically of statistics - enough for basics - and I do know what I'm saying. You're using them in a popular and ill-defined way inconsistent with the tools. If you claim otherwise, please tell me something about your findings: correlations found, confidence levels, that kind of thing. Better yet, provide a reliable source for the study and report on those results. What you've got is an intuition here, but it's not reliable. I've stated in a comment above how I think weasel words and tags should be regarded, and how to keep them both contained and non-weasel. I don't think I can back your "first step" as you describe it here. But maybe an example in an edit would help clarify your position. Who knows? We can bandy words here all day, but when we see the impact of one example, everything can become much clearer. Maybe there's less of a problem than supposed. Make a start. Try something. We'll get much further. What's to lose? An edit, reverted? I've needed to do that to myself a couple of times. It happens. But not every time. Cheers! Evensteven (talk) 07:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

You do understand the semantic difference between "people of other religious backgrounds are publishing papers opposing this" and "people of other religious backgrounds are not publishing in support of this", don't you? You seem to keep arguing with the former and providing critiques of the former when I'm only claiming the latter. All the statistical analysis in the world will fail if you don't understand the problem statement.—Kww(talk) 13:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I understand it. I don't attach significance to it. And I don't accept the reasoning behind the significance you attribute to it. Evensteven (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The charge of bias in the sources seems to be largely hypothetical here. There is a large pile of secondary sources, attesting that virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed. What scholarly sources contradict this? If none, then I suggest that this is not the place to right great wrongs. Kww needs to start writing and publishing his own papers on the subject, if he is unable to find scholars that agree with him. We just report what's out there. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Not hypothetical at all. Your "scholars of antiquity" are virtually 100% Christian. That's an anomalous concentration of Christians. If you found that the only people extolling the virtues of the Ford Fiesta were employees of the Ford Motor Company, would you insist on a rigorous statistical analysis of your sample before coming to the conclusion that you had a problem with source bias?—Kww(talk) 13:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

It's astonishing that you think there are no secular scholars of antiquity. But that's neither here nor there. If you have no source discussing this, then it would obviously be original research to point out this alleged bias in the article. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you show me a few of these non-Christian, non-Muslim "scholars of antiquity" that support the historic existence of Jesus of Nazareth? Seriously, for all the energy spent denying the existence of the problem, it should be simple to demonstrate the existence of counterexamples.—Kww(talk) 14:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

There are secondary sources in the article that already say this. Have you checked these yet? Is not Michael Grant a secular historian of some repute as well? Also, I am still waiting for your sources that challenge the neutrality of this material. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Which of these secondary sources are not published by Christians? What makes you believe Michael Grant was not a Christian? Judging from his quote about "Our Lord's Latin", he would certainly appear to be one.—Kww(talk) 18:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, we don't really know, and this is likely to run into no true Scottsman territory. That's what underscores the importance of secondary sources that review the literature. One of the sources has an unequivocal statement that virtually all scholars, both Christian and non-Christian, agree that Jesus was a historical person. Have you examined that source? Does it give references? Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

If it's simple, Kww, please show us how by demonstrating. But otherwise, it's not a problem anyway and not worth the time here. Evensteven (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Kww, you have said that you have been unable to find Hindu or Buddhist scholars that support the historicity of Jesus. Please indicate what sources you have found and what they say on the subject. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 17:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

One more time: I was unable to find Hindu or Buddhist scholars that support the historicity of Jesus. I can only show you my empty hands. There are no sources for me to show, because the problem I'm pointing out is the absence of sources. You are making the same conflation as Evensteven: not being able to find Hindu and Buddhist historians that speak in favor of historicity is not the same thing as being able to find Hindu and Buddhist historians that actively write in opposition to it.—Kww(talk) 18:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Please identify the sources you have consulted. Without identifying the sources you have consulted and indicating their specific position taken, be it positive, negative, neutral, or N/A, you donot give us any basis from which to determine WEIGHT according to those sources. John Carter (talk) 18:30, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Kww, if you even ask the question you can find people saying that Grant was an atheist, and nobody saying that he was a Christian. Besides, your hermeneutic of assumed bias is a big problem. If there were significant disputes within the field of Ehrman's and Grant's characterization of it, Then I would say that there is grounds for possibly disregarding their assessments. But your argument seems to me that you don't need to bother. I don't accept that. We're talking to prominent figures here; if people disagreed with these assessments, it wouldn't be hard to find the disagreement. So produce it. Mangoe (talk) 20:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

It turns out we do have reliable sources both inside and outside the field of biblical scholarship that question its methodological soundness and impartiality. See Historical_Jesus#Criticism_of_historical_Jesus_research. I'm not aware of similar statements about Grant. In any event, it's not reason enough to eliminate him as a reliable source, especially as he is one of very few historians who have written on the matter. We do need to say more about the backgrounds of the various people that we cite as sources, just as we do in the HJ article. We may need to improve on the prose in the Bold proposal that was recently Deleted, but we do need something like it. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

LOL @ people thinking there's a "wikipedia apologetics team". A majority of wikipedia editors are atheists or agnostics.

This section appears to be the work of another person who watched "Zeitgeist" for the first time.Ordessa (talk) 18:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Kww, please supply a source that either describes/characterizes the problem you are relating or one which has brought it to your attention. It is not a problem for which there is any action to be taken here as long as you alone are the source. If your hands are empty, then I sympathize, but I cannot see how the article is affected, nor can it be so only on that basis. Evensteven (talk) 20:00, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you perhaps suggesting that the article should read "Some Christian scholars and former Christian scholars state that virtually all historians believe ..."? Wdford (talk) 20:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

If you're asking me, no I wouldn't suggest that. But perhaps Kww? Evensteven (talk) 20:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC) (Should have been obvious to me it wasn't addressed to me.) Evensteven (talk) 20:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

WEASEL is about "Unsupported attributions." It says, "the examples given above are not automatically weasel words." If a source says most experts support the historicity of Jesus, while very few contest it, then we can say that.

The fact that most historians who have studied Jesus come from cultures that are predominantly Christian is irrelevant, unless reliable sources say their background has influenced their judgment. Even the greatest skeptics, such as Richard Dawkins, say that he probably was an actual person, about whom numerous myths were added by his followers and their followers in he decades following his death. Dawkins provides numerous examples of similar cases he calls "Cargo Cults." Does anyone think that his background in a Christian country biased him toward Jesus?

The alternative is that a group of Jewish people invented Jesus. While it is possible, it seems like a less likely scenario.

TFD (talk) 20:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I tend to be sympathetic to these comments. Specifically: about "Unsupported attributions.", yes; "If a source says most experts support the historicity of Jesus, while very few contest it, then we can say that.", yes. But if another source contests the first one, well, there needs to be a community consensus to continue saying it, at a minimum. And as I said above, as a practical matter, I think it serves the quality of the article to employ these kinds of words only when it is quite clear and undisputed that they are accurate. In addition, it serves the editing community to minimize mention of intermediate levels of source support, as in "some", "a few", "a majority", etc. These judgments are more susceptible to argument, which wastes community time, and leaves the article open to outside criticism anyway. It's generally better just to stick to what is firm, and where it is not firm, to discuss the most prominent variants with a minimum of characterization. That also tends to support neutrality. Evensteven (talk) 20:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

"If a source says most experts support the historicity of Jesus, while very few contest it, then we can say that." Great! Now, all you need to do is find that source. Here's a clue: none of the sources cited in the article at this point say this. Fearofreprisal (talk) 21:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I need do nothing, although I may if I choose. In the mean time, how many sources now in the article do support the historicity of Jesus, and how many do not? While we're at it, how many Christian historians have there been throughout history, and how many do not support it? Yes, the guidelines/rules do not cover this. But are not legal codes' most familiar weak point their inflexibility? Editing consensus can help, although it's not a fail-safe either. What is? Is it really your contention that the statement is inaccurate? What do you suggest? Evensteven (talk) 22:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Fearofreprisal, not even the source that comes from Bart Ehrman's 2011 review of the literature about Jesus?Ordessa (talk) 22:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Evensteven - figure of speech. No one needs to do anything here, unless they want to include material in the article that's likely to be challenged. How many sources now in the article do support the historicity of Jesus? Those that I've looked up tend to be weak, cherrypicked, or mis-cited. As for Christian historians throughout history, consider this citation:

"The early church was also not interested in the historical figure of Jesus, that is, in the life and personality of the Jesus who walked and taught in Galilee. Kähler was right: the only Jesus who meets us through the pages of the Gospels... is the Christ of faith."

— James Dunn, Jesus Remembered, page 77)

Ordessa - If you mean Ehrman's 2011 book,Forged: writing in the name of God, it is, to start with, not a review of the literature about Jesus. But, beyond that, Ehrman never actually mentions historicity in that book. Read its table of contents, and you'll see that the book is about something entirely different. Fearofreprisal (talk) 01:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, will the apologetics team please review wikipedia policy. As far as the WHO tags, obvious Christian bias is irrelavent at this point. You can't say that "virtually all scholars", EVEN IF THE SOURCE SAYS THAT. That is not how Wikipedia works, and we're not making an exception because a few people are letting their religious beliefs undermine their integrity. Again, PLEASE REVIEW THE FOLLWING:

Usage This tag is for placement after attributions to vague "authorities" such as "serious scholars", "historians say", "some researchers", "many scientists", and the like. For example:

Markup Experts agree... Visual effect Experts[who?] agree... You may use either one of the following formats:

or

Use it when no specific examples of identifiable individuals from that group are named who could be used to verify the statements or beliefs attributed to the group. Preferably, the offending statement should be made more specific by identifying particular individuals and then either cited or tagged for needing citation. Similarly, the statement should be deleted if the claim about the group is sufficiently vague as to be unsupportable.

Use good judgment when deciding whether greater specificity is actually in the best interests of the article. Words like some or most are not banned and can be useful and appropriate. If greater specificity would result in a tedious laundry list of items with no real importance, then Wikipedia should remain concise, even if it means being vague. If the reliable sources are not specific—if the reliable sources say only "Some people..."—then Wikipedia must remain vague.

This tag will categorize tagged articles into Category:Articles with specifically marked weasel-worded phrases. This template is a self-reference and is part of the Wikipedia project rather than the encyclopedic content.

Thank you very much, and to whoever removed those tags, you're violating Wikipedia policy, and whoever has been going around saying "most (Christian) scholars" you can't do that. It's against the policy, but if you insist, that's fine. It just shows that you are willing to lie and cheat the system to protect what you view as Truth. Please actually read the policy. You simply can't say "most scholars" even if that's what the source says. Cherry pick some other quotations to try and get your point across. Dr. Richard Carrier's new peer reviewed book on the the myth of Christianity's central figure is a good place to start.

Dear Anonymous User,

Richard Carrier has a massive anti-religious, anti-christianity bias. He puiblishes via anti-religious groups. We're not going to shove your agenda into a wikipedia article.

Read a properly peer-reviewed book like Bart Ehrman's sometime. Or just pick up a history book.Ordessa (talk) 15:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Policy continuation

A break for editing convenience.

Fearofreprisal, to some extent, sources for many articles are cherrypicked: too many to include, pick most reliable, pick most notable, pick most focused on topic, pick the ones available to editors, etc. Do you mean something else? Mis-cited? Ok, that's a simple error that can be corrected by an edit. Pick one, correct it, and state the nature of the citing error. Weak in support? You might be right about some of them. Unfortunately, Dunn is not even talking about historicity at all, but about personal characteristics such as personality. "Christ of faith" I find to be a nebulous phrase, meaning I'm not sure what exactly. I'd have said the Gospels do a great deal more portraying of Jesus' actions: his words, his deeds, his teaching, where he went, whom he met, what they said, etc. But that's me, and that's the Gospels, and an observation about the Dunn quote alone. That considered, I ask again if your contention is that the statement is inaccurate. That's an exceedingly common reason to edit an article, all other considerations aside.

To unsigned editor above, to repeat TDK above, WP:WEASEL says "the examples given above are not automatically weasel words." There is no absolute ban. It also says it is about "unsupported attributions." One can't use such words (or any words) to weasel out of providing a source by making vague or ambiguous claims, nor to weasel out of editing to make the text clear. Not all material requires a source - we can probably say water is wet without attribution. Sources are for backing up material that is not so widely shared and may be challenged or reasonably challengeable, and that doesn't require weasel words to enforce. Some words are vaguer than others (how's that for precision?). Better language is to be sought always, not just to avoid POV claims. The most relevant, key item here is accuracy. Is the statement reflective of the actual situation it tries to describe? But a second is relevant: clarity. Although accurate, is there a better way to convey the situation than using the current words? I don't think we really need to invoke WEASEL to get at the root of whether or not to edit this statement. These other questions will do the job better. Evensteven (talk) 03:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

By "cherrypicked" I mean exactly what WP:CHERRYPICKING says: "selecting information without including contradictory or significant qualifying information from the same source and consequently misrepresenting what the source says." Regards Dunn: Beyond reading p. 77 of Jesus Remembered (which will clarify the term "Christ of faith", you should also read p. 126-126. The citation to p. 339 that's included in the article is cherrypicked: the "universal assent" is among Christians, not among scholars, and it is based on belief, not on historicity. Fearofreprisal (talk) 04:27, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok. Misrepresentation of what a source says is no good whatever form it takes. Find occurrences, edit, and say specifically what is the problem in each. Seems like straightforward editing to me. I've done that myself. Do you see a difficulty with that approach? Evensteven (talk) 06:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

No real difficulty -- except for the fact that such changes often get reverted rather quickly, by members of the "wikipedia apologetics team" (OK - it's not a team, but there is an informal group of Christian editors here who are knowledgeable of apologetics and WP policy, and who are highly dedicated to preserving the status quo POV of this article.) Fearofreprisal (talk) 08:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, POV is a separate question. It's always possible that one's own assessment of a source will conflict with someone else's, and even when there are points of view involved (when aren't there?) that doesn't make the challenge illegitimate. I've seen elsewhere (and in non-religious topics) where one or two editors with a strong POV feel that the editing community consists of an oppositional team when they are so challenged, but just because a community forms a consensus does not mean that they are staking out a ground and position to defend all comers either. I'm less familiar here than some other places, but I'm afraid I have not seen an unwarranted protectionist policy being pursued here, and simply offer that as my observation. I have also taken note of your position/interpretation/assessment of things, in which you distinguish Christians from scholars (as disjoint groups), and characterize writings as "based on belief, not on historicity" (also as disjoint possibilities). Sorry, but that's not a researched opinion, not impartial, and not even very reasonable (in my view). If you find resistance to an edit, this may well be the source of the resistance, and you should understand where that is coming from and why. The status quo of an article is never the point. But changes need to be improvements, not backward slides. It is not within your purview alone to decide what is or is not an improvement, and that is a central aspect of editing WP. So, right or wrong, we all have to expect some opposition from time to time, must know how to support our position, and must know to recognize and admit the weaknesses in our own position. That is taking a scholarly attitude, and it serves both ourselves and the articles. Evensteven (talk) 15:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be confused about what positions of mine are "researched opinion." But I don't want to encourage this wall of text to grow further, so let's skip it.

@Bill the Cat 7:, an editor who has done nothing but remove and revert edits here over the last 4 years, just reverted one of my edits (without discussion.) He's an example of the apologists on WP (see his page at User:Bill_the_Cat_7/CMT_FAQ.) The first thing on his user page is a link to "How to win a revert war." Fearofreprisal (talk) 16:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

It's been discussed endlessly. That the baptism of jesus and his crucifixion are historical event's are doubted by no one except by those who are trying to sell nonsense. Stop trying to introduce fringe ideas into a serious subject. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

You're a funny guy. I like how you make a completely POV statement, then throw in "fringe," as if that claim actually has any merit. But the citation at question is not related to historicity. Dunn (the source) does indeed discuss historicity, but this particular citation is not about it. If you want to include it, you need to show that it falls within the scope of historicity. Fearofreprisal (talk) 17:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Bill the Cat 7 - If you want to include this citation, all you need do is show that "almost universal assent" = "historicity." Otherwise, it's outside the scope of the article. Fearofreprisal (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect. If you want to remove a citation, you MUST get consensus. Any further reverts will be considered vandalism. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Fearofreprisal, topics often extend beyond a dictionary definition of a word, and there is always room for support or auxiliary material as long as the article is not overburdened. Artificial restrictions may not be made on the basis of narrow definition. Evensteven (talk) 18:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Bill the Cat 7 - it's an extraneous citation that has nothing to do with historicity. And do you really think I'm dumb enough to violate WP:3RR?

You just did. Martijn Meijering (talk) 19:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Evensteven - Before, you said "Misrepresentation of what a source says is no good whatever form it takes." The citation that Bill insists on including is not about historicity, is not representative of Dunn's statements on historicity, and isn't even referenced in the accompanying article text. WP:SCOPE allows it to be removed. But, since we're [[WP:3RR], any further action is probably needs to go through dispute resolution. Should be interesting -- Bill is an experienced revert warrior. Fearofreprisal (talk) 19:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with BtC's list that coming up with another list in the opposite direction wouldn't "fix". To the degree I can follow this, this seems to be about trying to get rid of any testimony to state of the field. This argument that Ehrman and Grant and any of what is a rather long list of people cannot act as experts on this is tendentious; until people within the field who testify to a different state are produced, this comes across as a campaign to hide what appears to be the truth by attempting to discredit what turns out to be a very large number of people. Mangoe (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Tendentious editing is exactly what I think is happening. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Fearofreprisal, WP:SCOPE allows it to be retained. "Artificially or unnecessarily restricting the scope of an article to select a particular POV on a subject area is frowned upon." Historicity is a term that identifies the heart of the topic, but as with many articles, the title does not necessarily express its bounds. Things related to historicity are permitted, even if they are not directly historicity themselves. Your view is artificially restrictive and is apparently not shared. Consider "article scope, in terms of what exactly the subject and its scope is, is an editorial choice determined by consensus." And finally, "scope is to do with whether it even can be mentioned or summarised or not." It is not your decision alone as to whether or not this can be mentioned. Evensteven (talk) 21:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

So, what is the consensus scope of the article? Where do you want to draw the line? Would a statement from the Pope saying "Jesus was crucified" be appropriate to the article? Fearofreprisal (talk) 22:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

It would not be necessary. Evensteven (talk) 22:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I take it you don't want to touch the "scope" issue when it comes to actually saying what it is (versus just saying I've got it wrong)? My take is that if you don't want to say, then you're not actually contributing to establishing the consensus for the scope. Your prerogative, of course. Fearofreprisal (talk) 22:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe I have touched the scope issue quite clearly, just above, and in my recent article edits. Related material is permitted. Specifically, attestations as to Jesus' baptism and crucifixion are directly connected to his historicity, since those events could not have happened if he had not existed. I don't think there is any way that these source materials can be said to have no bearing on historicity. They are clearly relevant to the heart of the article, not even close to the boundary where any decision would need to be made regarding scope. Furthermore, your comment above about "a statement from the Pope" is not only unduly provocative, but is also a further indication of your insistence that no Christian is capable of being a reliable source, because all Christians believe in his historicity only by faith and for no other possible reason, their bias is too great. No sir! I will not buy that argument; it is a bias unto itself. To equal it in the opposite direction one would have to say that no atheist is capable of being a reliable source here because all atheists disbelieve in his historicity only by their opposition to religion. I most certainly do not say that either. The position you have staked out is untenable because it is unreasoning, prejudicial by group, and unwilling to be examined itself. I hope you will reconsider where you are taking a stance, and recognize that the world is not black and white, nor yet gray. Take a look at the color! Evensteven (talk) 23:27, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

With many Christians, the bias IS too great. I work with and live among Christians who frequently make it obvious that they cannot separate the concepts of their belief through their religion that Jesus existed, and whether the historic record proves that he did. While it's possible that some can, how can we know where to draw the line? HiLo48 (talk) 02:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Evensteven, please stop twisting people's words. Neither Fearofreprisal (nor I) have stated that all Christians believe in his historicity only by faith. We have stated that there would be a bias towards believing in his historicity due to their faith. For someone that wants to apply rigorous statistical analysis to glaring imbalances, you certainly seem willing to misstate other people's arguments.—Kww(talk) 03:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

That happens a lot here. It's one reason I rarely try to argue with some of the people here any more. HiLo48 (talk) 03:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I came here because of John Carter (I would say "JC" but because of the context that's ambiguous :P ) having posted on my second favourite noticeboard (my favourite is RSN, for the record).

@Hilo48: I tend to agree with you a lot more than others (remember the DYK incident?), but "Christians are biased, therefore Jesus didn't exist" is a non sequitur. I agree that many conservative evangelical Christian scholars (though not the majority of Catholic and Episcopalian scholars) are biased and make what could be called WP:FRINGE claims regarding whether, say, the resurrection of Jesus can be proven historically, all Christians believe Jesus existed historically, and since this article is solely about whether Jesus existed, in this instance all Christians are right on the only issue that matters. If you want to argue specifics about the historical Jesus (and please bear in mind I tend to agree with the most liberal scholars on that matter), we also have an article on that topic -- you don't seem to have ever argued the issues there.

@Everyone: I also note that despite all the citing of WP:NOTFORUM the proportion of users (on both sides) of these disputes who have actually edited the article is pretty slim: a brief Ctrl+F-ing of the history page indicates Hilo48 has not touched the article, and User:John Carter has only made three small reverts, two of which were more than five years ago; Fearofreprisal has been making dozens of edits over the last few weeks, apparently mostly edit-warring over the same material, which brings me to...

@User:Fearofreprisal: I'm not sure what you're arguing over, and therefore I am not sure if I agree or disagree with you on the substance. I am not about to read-through the entire cluster-bleep discussion on this page, but I did examine your most recent string of edits. Regarding this one, is your complaint (1) that devoting a paragraph to Dunn while more arguably more-prominent scholars Ehrman, Meier and Crossan have to share the following paragraph is a violation of WP:WEIGHT, (2) that Dunn doesn't say what he is being cited as saying, (3) that this article is simply about whether Jesus existed and details about what scholars can say about him belong in another article, or (4) that Dunn is wrong in stating that the majority of scholars consider the baptism and crucifixion to be historical facts? If the answer is (1) then I am inclined to agree with you, and I will help you discuss that matter here; if (2), then I would say I want to see a quotation from the source, but in this case since other reliable sources do say that we can just use any of the hundreds of other sources saying the same thing; if (3) then, as I told Hilo48 above, I agree with you in theory, but a brief discussion of the evidence for Jesus' existence is relevant, and "Christians wouldn't make up embarrassing facts like his baptism or crucifixion" is arguably the best such evidence (Ehrman 2012); if (4) then you are just plain wrong -- virtually all historians of this field consider Jesus to have lived, been baptized by John the Baptist, and executed by crucifixion. If you are in fact arguing about (4) then you will be WP:TBANned very soon for promotion of a WP:FRINGE theory.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

What a silly post. Just after we had discussed the issue of misrepresenting others' arguments, you completely misrepresented mine. I did not say "Christians are biased, therefore Jesus didn't exist". Nobody has said that. Why do people so stupidly misrepresent others in this discussion? How can consensus ever be achieved when people do that? HiLo48 (talk) 22:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I read every one of your posts on this page (that hadn't been archived). All of them were either "you are treating this page as a forum!", "that other person is NOT treating this page as a forum!" or "Christians are biased!" -- can you show me a genuine example of where you said something else? What exactly are you looking to do with this article? Are you not trying to make the page more "amenable" to the idea that Jesus never existed? That is certainly the impression I get when you have never edited the article and the closest thing you have made to a substantive argument is "Christians are biased". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

If you read every one of my posts, why did you claim that I had said "Christians are biased, therefore Jesus didn't exist"? I didn't. You claiming that I did is dishonest and inflammatory. Why do people so stupidly misrepresent others in this discussion? How can consensus ever be achieved when people do that? HiLo48 (talk) 02:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I call them as I see them. You said With many Christians, the bias IS too great. I work with and live among Christians who frequently make it obvious that they cannot separate the concepts of their belief through their religion that Jesus existed, and whether the historic record proves that he did. How else is this supposed to be interpreted? Since you have never actually edited this article, it's extremely unclear what exactly you are trying to accomplish. This page is for discussion of article content, and the above-quoted post appears to be a claim that we cannot use sources written by Christians for the claim that Jesus existed. Additionally, you should know that the historical record can never "prove" that someone existed beyond all doubt: historians make probability judgements, and in this case 99.9999% of historians consider there to be an extremely high probability that Jesus existed. That is all that matters here. The historians' theological convictions are irrelevant. If you think we can't cite historians because those historians are Christians, that unnecessarily disqualifies the overwhelming majority of historians who work in the field of early Christianity. It's generally fair to assume that 99.99999% of historians in different fields also accept the conclusions of their more-qualified colleagues, but why does that even matter? What are you trying to accomplish here? And why are you taking such an aggressive tone? I can tell you have had bad experiences with fundamentalist Christians on here before (and I sympathize completely), but there's no need to treat everyone who disagrees with you like a narrow-minded fundamentalist. I have agreed with you every time we have interacted before, and for all I know you and I might agree on the substance here, but I can't tell because your posts aren't entirely clear. Your earlier post that I was responding to implied you want the article to imply that there is some doubt that Jesus existed, but now you are apparently denying that. Perhaps you could clarify and then we could start working through the issues? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Evensteven - Touched the "scope" issue? Maybe a little, but not with much clarity. In any event, let's take examine your "related material" criterion. What makes something related? And how much space should be spent on this related material?" Where do you draw the line?

Also, your inference that I've said no Christian is capable of being a reliable source flies in the face of everything I've said in this talk page. It's a false narrative. Shame on you. Fearofreprisal (talk) 03:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Very well then Kww, Fearofreprisal, I got that wrong. Please accept my apologies. Perhaps it will now sound suspect for me to say so, but I had no intention of twisting words. I hate it when I see it happen in other cases. I like it less if I left that impression. If you will grant me the good will to believe that, then you may understand how I now really don't get what you're talking about in this thing about Christians and scholars, and how that's supposed to relate to historicity. One thing I seem to be hearing is bitterness about how some Christians have acted towards you, and resentment about ... what? a lack of honest engagement? I find this discussion has opened some of that same kind of bitterness in me too. One thing I will say is that I don't think Christians are superior to others, nor are others superior. I think we're all in the same boat together, all humans. Biases occur all over the place, not just in Christians. And they are just as prominent in non-believers as in believers. On those points I do stand.

As for your questions on scope, FOR, I find there is no reply to them that can reasonably be given. The answers would all depend on the specific situation about which they might be asked. An absolutish answer would just be artificial. What makes something related to something else? One can only recognize it and answer accordingly. How much space? Depends on how much you've got, how one must maintain balance in the article, things like that. Where do I draw a line? Nowhere, ever. I look at the other questions and make a choice: this looks better, or that - take this approach, or that one. And here on WP, those answers finally don't lie with me, but with the consensus. I'd just offer my insights for consideration. And I'd listen to the same from others. Maybe I'd hear something better than what I had. Sometimes I do.

For now, please pardon. As I have said, I find I have grown weary, and maybe irritable as well. I am going to take some time off from this page and discussion, and will return when I feel ready. Wishing you the best until then. Evensteven (talk) 05:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

@Hijiri88::

• (1) I never suggested this.
• (2) Dunn doesn't refer to "scholars." See Jesus Remembered, p. 339 [12].
• (3) This article is not about the "existence of Jesus." It is about the historicity of Jesus. You don't seem to understand the difference.
• (4) Dunn didn't say what you just said he did. Go back and read the citation. And note where Dunn quotates the word 'facts'. This is no accident (p. 102, 109.)

You managed to strike out 4 times out of 4 - a remarkable record.

It might make sense for you to actually do your homework before coming to the talk page for an article you've never contributed to, and accusing someone of WP:edit warring, and threatening them with a topic ban. Fearofreprisal (talk) 19:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

@Fearofreprisal:: I did not "strike out". Assuming good faith, I provided a solid list of all the possible motivations I could think of for your recent string of edits. Like I said, I'm not interested in reading what a bunch of Wikipedia editors think about the historicity of Jesus on this page; I'm here to help you resolve the current content dispute. You didn't actually answer my question. Please explain to me what the difference between "historicity of Jesus" and "existence of Jesus" is: the article clearly defines "historicity of Jesus" as: "the analysis of historical evidence to determine whether Jesus of Nazareth existed as a historical figure, and whether any of the major milestones in his life as portrayed in the gospels can be confirmed as historical events". This means that even if (3) was right you would be wrong because "virtually all historians accept to basic facts about Jesus' life as recorded in the synoptic gospels" fits the second point perfectly. And I am not interested in buying a book by Dunn: give me a quotation, and if Dunn in fact doesn't say what the article quotes him as saying, then (as I already said, but was ignored by you) we can just use one of the hundreds of other sources that say the same thing.

Also, I have not edited this article before, but have contributed a fair bit to articles in this area ("this area" being the kind of stuff Bart Ehrman tends to write about and Dale Martin tends to talk about). What have you contributed to these articles?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding 3), I don't recall seeing a clear definition of the difference between existence and historicity. They sound like synonyms to me. Martijn Meijering (talk) 19:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Historicity simply means "historical authenticity." FOR, do you have a different definition? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Martijn - if they were synonoyms, then we wouldn't need this article, would we?

I don't see the logic, why wouldn't we? Martijn Meijering (talk) 22:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Bill - That's a simplistic definition. You might look at Historicity for a little better definition. (In any event, it's not the same thing as "existence.") Fearofreprisal (talk) 22:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

If you want a definition, you use a dictionary - that's why dictionaries exist. The dictionaries say that Historicity simply means "historical authenticity." We maintain this article to explain to readers the position of scholars on Jesus' historicity, not to debate an imagined distinction between historicity and existence. Perhaps the Historicity article needs a clean-up too? Wdford (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Are we STILL arguing the toss over this? Out of curiosity, I read the citation from Dunn (Jesus Remembered, page 339): he says, "Two things in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent". The plain meaning of those words is that almost everybody agrees that these things are true. Fearofreprisal, on the other hand, insists that 'the "universal assent" is among Christians, not among scholars, and it is based on belief, not on historicity.' That is putting words in Dunn's mouth: he is a serious enough scholar to say "among Christians" if that is what he means, and to specify if he means 'based on belief'. It seems that Fearofreprisal wants the sources to say what he thinks rather than what they actually say. And I don't think we are going to get anywhere until he specifies what he thinks "historicity" means if it does not mean whether Jesus actually existed. --Rbreen (talk) 00:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Wdford - If you want a definition on Wiktionary, you use a dictionary. If you want a definition on Wikipedia, you use reliable sources. Feel free to provide some reliable sources to show that historicity and existence are the same thing. (Oh... those sources don't exist, do they? Too bad.) And, certainly, feel free to clean-up the Historicity article. I'll definitely enjoy watching the process.

Rbreen - You're right, of course about Dunn is a serious scholar. So, why would he say "almost Universal assent" when he knows that approximately 1.6 billion Muslims specifically do *not* believe that Jesus was Crucified? (Not to mention the minimum 2 billion people in the world who have no opinion on the subject?) And why would he *not* say "almost universal assent among [relevant] scholars" if that's what he meant? Go back and read p.337, and p. 340, then look at the table of contents, and see where Dunn discusses historicity, then read p. 125 and 126, where he distinguishes historicity versus historical Jesus research. You might also look at his statement of assumptions (he actually makes one), where he makes it clear that his starting place is the assumption that the Synoptic Gospels are historically accurate (which may be a reasonable starting place for apologetics, but not for historical research.) I'll let you find that one yourself, as I'm a little tired of doing your homework for you. Knock yourself out. Fearofreprisal (talk) 00:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Fearofreprisal, if you want a definition on Wikipedia, you use reliable sources, like a dictionary. And find a source that says historicity and existence are independent things. Knock yourself out. Evensteven (talk) 01:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes, Fearofreprisal, the old "Billions of people agree with me" argument. I've had that one on here before - from religious apologists who insist their view is correct because "2 billion Christians believe this". Interesting to hear it from the other side.--Rbreen (talk) 09:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a perfect example of how you miss the point. Dunn says that these details have 'almost universal assent'. The plain meaning of this is, 'almost everybody agrees'. Clearly, that is what he means. You argue that many people do not, in fact, agree with these points. Whether that is true or not is irrelevant; the problem is that you then go on to argue that what he actually means is that all Christians agree. That is your interpretation. Clearly, you've done some homework. Good for you. But your homework amounts to original research. --Rbreen (talk) 10:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

If I may interject with a brief comment here after skim-reading this lengthy debate - I do think that it's fair to expect people to familiarise themselves with sources rather than dismiss their contents out of hand. That goes for both sides of the debate, of course. Regards, Samsara (FA • FP) 11:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

@Samsara:: If you could skim-read this debate and understand what was going on, I commend you. It looks to me like people are arguing over the definition of "historicity", even though virtually all the sources seem to be unified in believing "historicity of Jesus" means "whether Jesus existed or not".[13][14][15] If I am misinterpreting Fearofreprisal (as he/she accused me of doing once already, with providing any clarification of how I had misinterpreted) I apologize, but it really does look like if this was an edit war rather than a talk page dispute it would quickly wind up on WP:LAME... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

You gotta be kidding me. Since when did links to Google searches become citations to reliable sources? You could settle the question of historicity/existence immediately, by providing actual citations. Fearofreprisal (talk) 17:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

We have provided citations to reliable sources, namely dictionaries. Its now up to you to provide citations to reliable sources that contradict those dictionaries, and which give an alternate meaning to the word in a context that is relevant to this article. Knock yourself out. Wdford (talk) 18:05, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Wdford - what are you talking about? I was referring to the links Hijiri88 provided to some google searches. That has nothing to do with citations to dictionaries. Fearofreprisal (talk) 18:54, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Fearofreprisal, it does have to do with how unclear you are in getting to the point. What question of historicity/existence? There is no ascertainable question. Please find a source that says historicity and existence are independent things. The dictionaries are clear. Evensteven (talk) 20:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I linked to Google searches to show that the majority of scholarly papers under university domain names, as well as scholarly books and papers in said universities' library catalogues, clearly use the phrase "historicity of Jesus" in the sense "historical existence of Jesus". (Along the lines of "The historicity of Jesus has never really been in doubt among serious scholars" and so on.) Individual reliable sources are pretty useless for this purpose, but you can trawl through my searches now, User:Fearofreprisal and try to find a single instance of the phrase being used in some other sense. Go ahead. I would be happy to discuss your findings. 182.249.240.40 (talk) 01:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC) (Hijiri88's phone)

Casey and Ehrman

I have no plans to enter this debate as I have my hands full at the Gospel of Matthew. However there are two books I would strongly recommend.

• Ehrman, Bart D. (2012). Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. HarperCollins. ISBN 978-0-06-220460-8. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Casey Maurice, (2014). Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths? A&C Black. ISBN 9780567015051

Unlike James Edwards, both Casey and Ehrman are non Christians. After reading their meticulous evaluation of the historical evidence, I am totally convinced that there truly existed a Jewish rabbi named Jesus of Nazareth. He participated in the Jewish oral tradition of the Second Temple period. The Apostle Matthew compiled these sayings and composed a small, somewhat primitive Hebrew Gospel (possibly on wax tablets) which became the basis or "fountainhead" for much of what we now call the Gospel of Matthew. Also, the first Greek gospel was composed by Marcus within ten tears of the death of Jesus ie 40 CE. See Casey 2014 pp 80-90 Agree or not, Casey and Ehrman are a "must read" for editors interested in this area! - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

As I said above, the religion of the scholars is irrelevant, since 100% (or maybe 99.999999%) of scholars of the relevant fields, regardless of their theological views, hold the same view on the historicity of Jesus: he existed. Ehrman is a reliable source because he is the most respected New Testament scholar in the United States (he wrote the textbook most of the other scholars use to teach their students, for instance); he is not reliable (or unreliable) because he is not a Christian. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Wait... by "hands full" you mean you are promoting a WP:FRINGE theory almost as fringe-y as the Jesus myth theory, right? That Matthew was originally written in Hebrew? This is patently ridiculous, and 99+% of scholars agree. I'm not going to go into the details here but one pretty obvious piece of evidence that even a layman like me can find pretty easily is that Matthew cites Greek mistranslations of the Hebrew Bible (regarding the virgin birth of Jesus, for instance). If the author of the text could write Hebrew, then he must have been able to read Hebrew, and if he could read Hebrew, why did he not read Isaiah in the original Hebrew, but in Greek? And if he read Isaiah in Hebrew, then surely he must have known that there was no mention of a virgin conceiving a child and that child being called Emmanuel. I forget where, but I think even conservative Michael Heiser agrees here; not specifically on the Isaiah quotation, but on the entry into Jerusalem and how Matthew could not have known about Hebrew poetry and still had Jesus riding on both a colt and an ass. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:52, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

No comment as to the nature or quality of the references here. I will simply observe that characterizations like "must read" tend to sound demanding and can therefore be annoying. In addition, a précis is not necessary; those interested can go look for themselves. Recommendations are best received when asked for, or are offered as a pointer within an ongoing discussion. Together, these things tend to be viewed more as a promotion than a help, and may raise concerns of pushing or POV. A lower tone level devoid of descriptives would probably be more welcomed. Example: "The following sources may provide material for this article: [book 1], [book2]." Evensteven (talk) 18:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't wish to be unwelcoming, but if you're not willing to do the hard work of contributing to the article, you're not really helping. While Ret.Prof has contributed to the article (though several years back) -- Hijiri88 and Evensteven have not. Why are you even here? Fearofreprisal (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I found my break refreshing. I'm ready now. Evensteven (talk) 22:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Fearofreprisal, you have not either. You are just edit-warring, and you seem to be doing so in order to promote a FRINGE POV... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Which fringe POV are you suggesting I'm trying to promote? Fearofreprisal (talk) 00:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't even know any more. I asked you what exactly you want to do with this article, even providing a list of examples of what I thought you might mean, and all you did was insult me. It would seem that you consider Jesus's historicity (i.e., whether or not Jesus existed historically) to be in doubt. This is a fringe POV. If I have misinterpreted you, I apologize. Can you clarify this? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm taking this conversation off Talk:Historicity of Jesus, because it has nothing to do with improving the article.

You came to the page through John Carter's posting on the Fringe Theories Noticeboard, so it's pretty clear that you were looking for fringe. If you talked to John Carter, he may have even directed you to me.

You started out by *not* reading what I'd written, but rather positing 4 possible things I *might* be saying. You were wrong on all 4. You then continued accusing me of edit warring, and promoting a fringe POV. When I specifically called you on the latter, you couldn't substantiate the accusation. Here's what you said:

I don't even know any more. I asked you what exactly you want to do with this article, even providing a list of examples of what I thought you might mean, and all you did was insult me. It would seem that you consider Jesus's historicity (i.e., whether or not Jesus existed historically) to be in doubt. This is a fringe POV. If I have misinterpreted you, I apologize. Can you clarify this? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to "clarify" whether I consider "Jesus's historicity to be in doubt", because it's none of your business, has nothing to do with my ability to edit the article subject to WP's policies and guidelines, and has had no bearing on any of the comments I've made on the talk page.

If you want to continue attacking me, please do it on my talk page, where you're not causing disruption for other editors. But, even better -- just stop accusing me of things you can't substantiate. Fearofreprisal (talk) 18:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

@Fearofreprisal:: I did indeed read what you wrote. I read what you wrote on the article itself. I asked politely what it was that you meant by your edit, and you didn't respond, merely insulting me, and now you are haranguing me about it on my own talk page because you apparently have no interest in discussing article content. I have not "attacked you" once. I am moving your discussion back to the main talk page where others can respond, and where it belongs. If you are indeed insinuating that the historical existence of Jesus is in doubt, then that discussion belongs here, not on my page. I have no interest in discussing the matter with you personally, but if you want to discuss what exactly you mean by your edits to this article, please do it here where none of the other participants will miss it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Hijiri88:Here's a link to the message I posted on your talk page (the one you quickly deleted): [16]. I'll repeat the last part: "If you want to continue attacking me, please do it on my talk page, where you're not causing disruption for other editors. But, even better -- just stop accusing me of things you can't substantiate."

I will not disrupt this talk page to address your misconceptions and attacks. If you don't back off, our next stop is WP:ANI. Fearofreprisal (talk) 21:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I did not delete any message from you. I moved it here, where it belongs. And you don't have the right to tell me which pages to edit and which not to. I did not "attack" you once, and I would challenge you to post a diff of a single such "attack". If you say something like "don't edit this page or I'm gonna request you be blocked" again, your next stop will be ANI. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

"accepted facts"

what is this section?

Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity (who) agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars (who) and classical historians (who) see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[4][6][7][18][51]

I checked the sources and these citations are dubious. They don't all class that the idea that the Jesus didn't exist are "effectively refuted". Someone put this ridiculous paragraph in all the Jesus articles and all the Christian apologists insist that there is nothing wrong with it. Break it down and if there are so many who say that it has been refuted, put them individually.should be no problem, right? Accept that the sources don't say what the Christians claim they say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.107.248 (talk) 00:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Citations 6 and 7 don't really apply to the statement, but, taken at face value, citations 4, 18, and 51 do. I wrote citation 4, so I've verified it -- and there was extensive discussion about it on this talk page. Citation 18 is close to what the author said, but it's an intentional misquotation, so I'm marking it with a "failed verification" template. I've requested a quotation on citation 51, as the first page of the citation (the only one I can find on google books) raises a suspicion that it may not be verifiable.

Whether or not a claim is dubious to you, if it's backed up by reliable sources (and, Ehrman, Van Voorst, and Dunn are all reliable), the claims stay. Ehrman says "virtually every competent scholar of antiquity." He's probably overstating, but unless you can find a source that says "Ehrman is full of it" there's not much to do. Fearofreprisal (talk) 04:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The Resurrection

[T]he accepted facts, and the minimal facts in particular, are not only established historically but are recognized by virtually all critical scholars as well. The advantages are that these facts provide a strong basis for belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus and, at the same time, should not be rejected since they are recognized on strictly historical grounds. The facts that almost all scholars accept provide a strong basis for belief in Jesus' literal resurrection from the dead, especially in the absence of viable naturalistic theories. On this basis, then, we may conclude that the early Christian creeds and accepted historical facts prove the historicity of the death and resurrection of Jesus.

— Gary R. Habermas, The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, p 170.

Any reason this shouldn't be included in the article? Fearofreprisal (talk) 04:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The source appears to be a Christian apologist whose views are not accepted by mainstream historians. Ehrman (who wrote the most widely-used undergrad NT studies textbook in the United States) and Martin (a Yale professor) are more reliable sources on the matter.[17][18][19] Upstairs they are discussing which dramatically summarized points of historical scholarship on the historical Jesus should be included in this article, and you are asking why we don't discuss something that no one thinks can be demonstrated historically? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

You can't exclude a source based on bias. The source notes that the "accepted facts" are recognized by "virtually all critical scholars." (This is rather like Ehrman, who uses the term "virtually every competent scholar of antiquity.") Habermas is claiming his is the majority viewpoint (and he backs it up with survey data [20]), so this material should be included. If you have some offsetting citations to the minority viewpoint, provide them. Your original research ("...whose views are not accepted by mainstream historians," or, "something that no one thinks can be demonstrated historically") are not relevant or appropriate here or in the article. Fearofreprisal (talk) 17:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I am pretty much agreed with FOR on this point. You can't exclude a source based on bias, especially because there is no source without bias. The question is not whether or not the source has bias, but whether or not his research has bias. The Habermas survey is not biased. He carefully surveys the range of viewpoints, discusses them neutrally, classifies them, and provides summary weights indicating their relative occurrence. In many cases, it is crystal clear that not every scholar agrees with a single view; in some, it is equally clear that scholarly opinion is near unanimous. But FOR is correct also, that you are welcome to provide offsetting sources if you have them. But you may not present your own research. Evensteven (talk) 18:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

From a brief and interesting read, it seems that Habermas is claiming that "most scholars" support the contention that the disciples BELIEVED they had seen Jesus alive. This is obviously based on the assumption that the gospels are authentic, and that the few mentions of post-resurrection appearances are not later interpolations. Habermas does NOT appear to claim that "most scholars" agree that Jesus was in fact resurrected - that seems to be his own conclusion. It will be interesting to see how Fearofreprisal proposes to incorporate this info into the article - will Fearofreprisal break his trend tonight and actually propose a paragraph? Wdford (talk) 19:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Habermas does not extend his survey to include the question of actual resurrection. But as far as it goes, I find it to be unbiased and scholarly. The unanswered question might be relevance to the article. Now we're back at article scope. I too would like to see FOR's proposal for that reason. Evensteven (talk) 19:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Wdford - Please provide citations for your observations about Habermas' claims.

Here's a diff of one of your recent edits [21]. You'll find that I already wrote the paragraph you asked me to propose, and included it in the article. You deleted it.

Now, tell me: Why I should take the effort to do the careful research required to contribute to this article, only to be accused of edit warring, pushing POV, pushing fringe, and ultimately have my contributions deleted? Fearofreprisal (talk) 20:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Your "careful research" has nothing to do with edit warring. That would be for other reasons. Pushing POV also may not have anything to do with the research itself, but for other reasons. The fringe may also not be in the research. How the research is characterized in the paragraph is significant, and that is apparently where the source of the rejection lies. The question then becomes, is there another way to characterize it, suitable to you, that is also suitable for inclusion into the article? Evensteven (talk) 20:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

You're making inferences based on no evidence. You don't know why Wdford deleted the contributions I mentioned. Fearofreprisal (talk) 22:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

No, of course I don't. Irrelevant. The three things you mentioned are policies on editorial behavior, not on their research. Do you disagree? Evensteven (talk) 23:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

He says that the "facts" are accepted by virtually all scholars, that these facts "provide a strong basis for belief in the [...] resurrection of Jesus", and that "accepted historical facts prove the historicity of the [...] resurrection". This is not a historical view. Let alone that nowhere in the quotation provided are disciples mentioned (hence debunking User:Wdford's main point), historians don't even accept that as evidence of a miracle because the historicity of miracles can never be "proven". Please watch any of the debates I linked in my previous post. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The two things that require citations are "this is not a historical view," and "historians don't accept..." But, even then, it's a challenge to deal with it without resorting to WP:OR or WP:SYN. Fearofreprisal (talk) 23:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Here you go – I don’t have the book you mentioned, which was apparently published in 1996, so I picked an article on that topic from Habermas’ own website, dated 2006, which is presumably an even more up-to-date rendering of his position: see [22] If you read it all the way to the end, you will see that the word "disciples" appears about 40 times. Wdford (talk) 00:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, as I stated clearly enough, the reason I made the edit in your diff above was to reduce the lead to being a summary of the article content, rather than have the lead be a full article in itself. The issue under discussion here is about the bias of scholars and criticisms of methodology – why don’t you word up a paragraph for discussion on the talk page? Wdford (talk) 00:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

As for Habermas: You can find the book I cited on books.google.com. Not all pages, though. The citation you provided is what I was asking for. Thank you.

Your edit did reduce the size of lead, but you didn't put the removed material back into the body of the article. Here is material you removed that I think is relevant:

The historicity of Jesus is distinct from the related study of the historical Jesus, which, according to James Dunn, "is properly speaking a nineteenth- and twentieth-century construction using the data supplied by the Synoptic tradition, not Jesus back then," (the Jesus of Nazareth who walked the hills of Galilee), "and not a figure in history whom we can realistically use to critique the portrayal of Jesus in the Synoptic tradition." (Jesus Remembered Volume 1, by James D. G. Dunn 2003 ISBN 0-8028-3931-2 pp. 125-126. See also Meir, Marginal Jew, 1:21-25; T. Merrigan, The Historical Jesus in the Pluralist Theology of Religions, in The Myriad Christ: Plurality and the Quest for Unity in Contemporary Christology (ed. T. Merrigan and J. Haers). Princeton-Prague Symposium on Jesus Research, & Charlesworth, J. H. Jesus research: New methodologies and perceptions : the second Princeton-Prague Symposium on Jesus Research, Princeton 2007, p. 77-78: "Dunn points out as well that 'the Enlightenment Ideal of historical objectivity also projected a false goal onto the quest for the historical Jesus,' which implied that there was a 'historical Jesus,' objectively verifiable, 'who will be different from the dogmatic Christ and the Jesus of the Gospels and who will enable us to criticize the dogmatic Christ and the Jesus of the Gospels.' (Jesus Remembered, p. 125).")(Ehrman, Bart. The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. ISBN 0-19-515462-2, chapters 13, 15)

Philip Davies points out that Christians have a stake in the "unanswerable question" of Jesus’ historicity, and that scholars such as Ehrman use "highly emotive and dismissive language" to attack, "ad hominem, as something outrageous" the whole idea of raising this question. Davis suggests that the idea of testing the "rather fragile historical evidence for Jesus of Nazareth," or even working out what kind of historical research might be appropriate, is controversial among New Testament scholars. He notes that, while he is inclined to believe that a historical Jesus existed, arguments that Jesus was invented more soundly demonstrate that nothing reliable can be known about the historical Jesus's life, teachings, or even initial followers before Paul of Tarsus. (Emeritus Professor Philip Davies, of the University of Sheffield, England. http://www.bibleinterp.com/opeds/dav368029.shtml)

If you think this material is a good starting point for a paragraph about the bias of scholars and criticisms of methodology, let me know, and I will summarize some other materials that directly address methodology. Fearofreprisal (talk) 00:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

It's a start. However this section is a summary of the main article Historical Jesus, so we should not bloat it too much with extensive quotes. Could you perhaps paraphrase this into one paragraph? Wdford (talk) 00:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Main article? Historical Jesus is not the main article. It's an entirely different article, dealing with non-historical recreations of the life of Jesus based on the Synoptic gospels. The name "historical Jesus" is a well known misnomer (citations available.) This article deals solely with the historicity of Jesus. Fearofreprisal (talk) 01:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)